I don't think that developers on crowdfunding platforms can be so trusted, especially when I see the S:RR's case about DRM. Even if there are "DRM-free" and "Linux version" in the same page, there is almost always "Steam" too, and it's easy for a developer to say on the release: "we are sorry for our Linux backers who thought that they would have a DRM-free version, they will have Steam version. We weren't so lying here: there are DRM-free versions! Yes, they are for Windows and Mac OS, but hey you have Wine, haven't you? And look: there is no extra DRM from us in the Steam version, we promise!"
When I look at some saying from Egosoft (yes, they didn't use crowdfunding) since 2011: "we always provide you a no-steam.exe. The game is DRM-free!"
But playing could be "DRM-free", the install is clearly not. I think it's matter of time since other devs can use that excuse.

At least, Obsidian were more transparent about that issue since the beginning: they have clearly stated that a DRM-free Linux version would not be so obvious, since GOG stated during their KS campaign, that they didn't support Linux. I thought that could be wolly, and PE's release will happen in one year. But...

You know, my stance may be a bit odd. If a game is planned not to be released on Linux since the very beginning, it won't stop me from buying it, or even preordering it. I take the example of TW3. I'm fine with that.
But if a game is planned to be on Linux as well, but without guarantee of being DRM-free, it's frustrating to wait for a clear stance, and frustrating to know that it wouldn't. Especially if I am a backer not because I want to preorder a game, but because I believe in the project, in what the devs are planning to do inside the game. But if a project can appeal me for what it is inside the game, but cannot clearly tell me what it will be outside the game, even if there are the solution of using Wine, if I cannot play the game without Steam when Windows users and Mac OS users can, I'd rather not back the project, nor buy the game later, because I don't approve the project, as a whole thing, inside and outside the single game.
Having GOG mentioned on KS's pages was for me guarantee for having true DRM-free.

But if the project is planned for Windows only at the beginning, I could paradoxically consider it. Because it was clear.
And since I'm a collector too, knowing that the devs would make a single collector's edition (that I can afford, I don't have lots of money nethertheless) in the whole project's history, and knowing that I cannot truely trust devs on what they promise and what I would like, will me think that I'd rather totally should forget the project and the game for ever. To avoid disappointment.


But, it won't prevent me from supporting GOG to expand their catalog (old and new games). I'm sad, not angry, and my hope, as tiny it could be just now (I need some coffee ;)), is always here. Like I often say, good games released now will be good old games in the future. I don't just know what to think about pledging or not future crowdfunding projects, depending of what will happen in the next few years.

It depends. If they specifically say DRM free Linux version and then they only have a Steam Linux version, then they effectively have not delivered what they promised to deliver and you can demand your money back according to the terms of service of Kickstarter. If everyone would comply without making a fuss... I don't know. Maybe one should ask very specific about Linux and DRM before backing.

I get from TET's posts over on GOL that GOG doesn't consider it financially viable to support Linux, a view which differs from much of the rest of the industry (and especially indie developers that GOG seems to be focusing on as of late); all these developers that are now creating Linux versions of their games seem to consider it worthwhile. Even the likes of CryTek, Kalypso, Sega / Sports Interactive, Deep Silver / 4A Games etc. As far as distributors go, there's Steam (obviously), the Humble Store, Desura etc. but none of them insist on DRM-free like GOG does. And as far as difficulty supporting Linux goes - they obviously don't consider it as difficult as GOG does.

Even if GOG just provided native Linux versions as unsupported extras (I don't really care how they're packaged so whatever the developer provides, even .tar.gz is fine) without any promise of official Linux support, what would be the harm in that? The native Linux versions exist already and have been tested & are supported by their developers. Providing them like this would be no different to how GOG provides the Ittle Dew prototype, "The Lady, The Mage, and The Knight" tech demo with the Divinity games and other similar extras. Refusing to provide them at all no matter what just denies us the native Linux versions for no good reason.

EDIT: Kind of ninja'd by TheEnigmaticT.


Of course GOG.com can choose which OS to support and which not and I respect that. It only means that when there is a Linux version available of a game that I’ll buy it somewhere else.

However, I admit that I find the arguments not very convincing. Or maybe I just have the wrong idea of how GOG.com works. If a developer creates a cross-platform compatible game, isn’t it up to the developer to ensure it is running (almost) flawless on the said operating systems? And to provide patches if it doesn’t? How’s that different for Linux compared with Windows and Mac? Again, I find it quite odd that, when a developer can offer support for a game for Linux, GOG.com can’t. (Reversely, I find it quite interesting that GOG.com then offers support for an operating system that even the developer officially doesn’t support, namely Windows 8 for FTL: Faster than Light.)

Also I wonder how offering native Linux versions of games as well could be uneconomical. Once again: the games have already been programmed and developed for Linux.

Besides, it's quite amusing how the argument of GOG’s strong believe in freedom of choice is used against exactly that: offering support for another operating system and thus freedom of choice! ^^

From the replies in the interview one could get the impression that GNU/Linux systems (across the board) are continuously and dramatically changing and things are prone to break permanently, which simply isn’t true. In that case, GNU/Linux wouldn’t be so popular worldwide for the most crucial of systems, such as servers, mainframes and super computers (among others). (Granted, they are different from desktop systems.) Especially Debian, which is mentioned in the interview, is famous for its stability and not for hasty and permanent changes.

In any case, from my experience, there wasn’t a single native Linux game that I had serious problems with and that I couldn’t get to run on my ArchLinux 64-bit system.

I understand & accept that, however that shouldn't stop you providing the native Linux versions as unsupported extras? Just make it absolutely clear that they're not supported; gate the Linux versions behind a page that warns in big red text that you don't support them if you have to. It would be far better for us than your current stance of just refusing to provide them at all.

Hmh, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

This is exactly the same situation for every developer and publisher, regardless of the operating system. No one can predict future development of hard- and software and I doubt current developers and publishers of games worry about their product being compatible with future operating systems. So why does GOG.com? How will you be able to ensure that the games you currently offer (but didn’t produce, mind you!) will also be compatible with future (proprietary!) operating systems? I think that’s impossible.

Yup. It’s ultimately a question of strong believe in support or freedom of choice. ;-)

People in this thread have been claiming that GOG will inevitably support Linux and things like that. Well that obviously not the case. They continually insist on double standards for Linux. Not supporting a obscure Linux distro is no different than not supporting Windows 3.11.

Well it is and it isn't. There are differences between XP and 7 and GOG installers install dependencies and games include DLLs where needed to get over those differences.

The Mac versions use Wineskins to install a version of Wine known to work with that game, and in both cases versions of ScummVM and DOSBox with what they see as the best compatibility are used.

That's actually not so different to distributing on Linux. You'd need to provide your own libraries to ensure the games worked.

Double standards? Yes - but suggesting Windows 3.11 is little bit too far.

Here's another thing to take issue with. Both Piotr and T suggest that Steam only supports one distro and leaves it at that... Let's look at Steam for a second. First of all - Steam is a horrible piece of software and it shouldn't exist. But it's actually solved the distribution problem. With Steam, any game will work on any Linux distribution so long as they keep their runtime updated. This functionality is not tied to the client, either, although in the interest of distro agnosticism they choose to have the client update and maintain the runtime. GOG can actually do a similar thing ("gasp! a client!?") - well no, not a client. But a single script (perhaps included with every game just like that bloody PDF reader?) that pulls the runtime from GOG's server and installs it to your home directory (let's say ~/.gog/runtime). Games then invoke ~/.gog/runtime in LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

If the script is configurable enough, you could specify where the runtime goes and where the game goes. If GOG just distributes the script (and maybe a deb package because Boontoos might have a heart attack trying to run a script) and have a licensing agreement that allows the scripts to be included in distro repositories (Steam does this, hence why it is wrong that "Steam supports one distro and leaves it at that") you have perfect Linux support for GOGs.

What do the scripts do, exactly, then? They first check if the runtime has been installed, install if it hasn't and then pulls the GOG from GOG servers using the API. Maybe there can be a little GUI representing a "folder" or "shelf" of GOGs for you to select which GOG you like (a bit like Boxer or the Game Explorer, but hacked up in dzen2) and that gets you past the fact that some users might just install GOGs to their home directory - although, the script is configurable and we can install it for all users if we have the root password.

It's a bit finnickity - but Xyem and I basically already did it. We don't handle downloading because at the time we wrote those, lgogdownloader didn't exist although we could easily modify them now to download GOGs for you. And yes you'll notice that it hasn't been updated for a while - you have to remember with that project we basically were emulating GOG's behaviour - each of those packages/games we tested and made sure it worked before considering it complete. It was very time consuming and as a volunteer project it's not too much fun (hire us, please). And yes the scripts are specific to Arch Linux, but the same concept can easily be applied to creating build scripts for just about any distribution.

I'm not making the case for Linux support on GOG at all. I don't care enough - I can handle it myself. But the reasons we've been given are frankly... FUD. There's no moving target issue, distributions are not all that different and they use similar methods already to get games working on Mac and Windows.

It is actually embarassing that Steam got there first. It makes the PC space look bad that they're leading the game in platform agnosticism. Shit, the goddamn Steambox is going to a Debian based distribution with a hardware spec (source: it already exists).

GOG I love you to death but you annoy me.

I would write a response, but... What he said /\
(I just don't really love GOG. I'm in a kind of distributor neutral territory.)

With Windows games, GOG offers uniform installers for all their games (and that's why I personally think GOG DRM-free installers are better than e.g. the Humble Store DRM-free installers which are quite incoherent, they don't get patches etc.).

If GOG just passed the Linux versions that developers provide to them directly to customers, would they be of various different formats, with various ways how the DLC is provided etc.?

Naturally if GOG was able to force all developers to make uniform installers and such just for GOG versions (and not e.g. directly just slap the same zip or tgz file that was hastily put into Humble Indie Bundle), then I guess it would work. A bit like Valve is forcing the developers to make their games and patches downloadable and installable through the Steam client, if they want to sell their games through Steam.

But maybe GOG isn't yet quite in the position to demand that from developers, but GOG has to do most of the extra work themselves, I'd assume.

All the indie devs who offer Linux versions are supporting their versions naturally. So does GOG has even higher standards than them or why aren't they including these in their releases?

GOG can not offering Linux version if they want to, but I don't buy their explanation for not doing it. I guess it's only partly so and Linux support of some of the games would be possible without too much effort. Anyway I wouldn't mind them if they offered games with limited support and I also see them as quite similar to Steam or Desura. Sure there are differences but mostly they sell games for a good price.

This is just to oppose a bit the official stance and show that there is plenty of room for different interpretations. :)

If providing the installers etc. in an uniform and coherent way for all GOG games, instead of each developer coming up with their own solutions (see the DRM-free Windows installers on HiB, for example) is considered higher standards, then yes.

But even then, I still wouldn't mind GOG offering the incoherent(?) Linux versions straight from the developers as some kind of unsupported extra, just like many have suggested. And while they are at it, maybe even the Android versions for those games that have them? :)

Yeah - supporting old games that GOG got to work makes sense. Providing an inferior support to indie games when I can just ask whoever created it in the first place... Not so much.

In fact, in some fora, it's almost impossible to make other backers understand this point of view. Because many people don't want to understand, they will have their game and that's all they think about. And in some cases, it's always the same thing: "I do not have a problem with Steam, so you should do not too, and if you do, then it's your problem." Or even sometimes, "do not make trouble with our lovely devs" Nianianianiania.
Devs-fanboys, steamboys, win-fanboys, mac-fanboys, all of them trying to minimize other opinions, even if Linux and DRM-free were promised.

In some projects, many people asked for having Linux and DRM-free in the same sentence, and without a negativity stance. Obsidian answer it could be a problem and even if it disappointed me at the moment, I respect their honesty.
Like you said, Larian Vault and Ranger Center could provide Linux DRM-free version. Full Control (about Jagged Alliance Flashback) said that in the last case they would have to provide it at their own website.
Concerning all projects I follow, there could be a Linux DRM-free in the DVDs. That would be something that could satisfy me. But when I backed projects, it was about things not necessarily for backers-only.

But once more, I will wait and I greatly appreciate the debate and that GOG themselves participate.