Comment by EspadaV9 2 days ago
No. Please don't. Contribute to something like Heroic Launcher instead. Don't create something new just for GOG. Help make the existing tools better. It'll mean GOG has to do less work, and the programs people are already using will get better. Or even just sponsor Heroic so they can send more time we can working on it themselves.
Yep, luckily they represent a very small, albeit loud, minority of Linux users.
The vast majority of Linux users are very happy to get an official GOG Galaxy for Linux. I hope they will plug into Proton and collaborate with Valve, but we really need official tools and brands on Linux for common users to feel comfortable enough to come over.
It is the same thing, just emphasizing that the OS is more than the kernel, and than the userland comes from the GNU project.
The latter had been designed to be a full OS but didn't have a functional kernel when Linux was released, and Torvalds adopted the GNU userland for his project.
And Chimera Linux which is GNU-less. I guess you could call it FreeBSD/Linux but I think that'll just confuse people.
Linux is both the name for the kernel and the full operating system.
GOG needs to contribute 0-day fixes to the kernel, otherwise they’re not committed to Linux /s
They're not creating something new. They're taking their existing tool (which - for all its flaws - is still far ahead of Heroic in many ways), improving it further, and changing it to also work on Linux.
If they then go add additional features like wine integration to that tool to make it overlap more with Heroic is something we're all assuming, but not actually a given.
They could at least use Flatpak and containers instead of choosing a given distro or package manager.
A lot of words for "yes they will insist on fragmentation"
Linux userspace is defined by fragmentation. Linux users can't even unify on a distro, such that significant swathes of software are incompatible for some users despite everyone using the same kernel. In that environment, and also just in general, why is anybody obligated to contribute to a specific existing project rather than building their own?
As much as i hate the pointless Linux fragmentation, I think them going down the path of steam/heroic games launcher and releasing one appimage/.deb file and letting others take on the burden for their distros should do.
I mean, the main issue with portability is the insistance on dynamic linking, far more than the distro situation.
If you use Linux like MacOS and only run static binaries and containerized programs via things like flatpak everything is fine.
It's totally possible to treat the distro simply as a thin base layer and get everything else from flatpak and the various container hubs. It does work great.
Said absolutely nothing about obligation, raising the same decades-long observation. The users will see strife [and joy], considering Heroic does decently but this will be advantaged. That's it. Forgive me if I don't want to go over it again.
Disagree, but that's fine. Only so many users, attention, etc. Heroic will probably see degradation.
They're entirely welcome to do this, I just think there's room for more opportunity with combined/open effort. Idealistic? Sure.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that doing nothing remains an option.
Fragmentation is a good thing, it's called competition, and user choice. If you don't like it, buy a Mac or something.
Like I'm not aware and it's sunshine/rainbows, actually. Competition in the GOG launcher space, huzzah. To the detriment of One Launcher To Rule Them All.
To be clear: I'm for a first party solution. I support their efforts as much as I can. It will have considerable impact on the users. Both ways.
If you see it form the point of view of a Linux user it's more fragmentation, but if you look at it from the point of view of a gamer it's less fragmentation. Guess who their target audience is?
Guess what has been serving those gamers, actually I'll be kind: Heroic.
Let me know when you finish with your 90000th spin of Debian. I'll be over here playing w/ Heroic
Everyone in the linux world insists on fragmentation, though? It's a part of what makes it great and a mess at the same time.
And what of it? Every time a for profit company uses open source they'll either create a closed fork, and if they can't they'll create closed source modules for it.
I'm not saying it's bad to wish for companies to support FOSS, I'm just saying it's an unrealistic expectation to have.
The impression I've had for a long while now is that just as the software side is fragmented so is the userbase in what they want, including a segment that want one true way and all that fragmentation to go away. The trouble I see with catering to all that variation is it's putting an onus for more work on the developer (which needs funding from somewhere, most likely the publisher) and while linux (and GOG) is a niche market in the present and near term it doesn't seem like a winning proposition.
There's definitely a desire for an appliance/console like experience where all the complexity is hidden behind install/play buttons, and steam has got most of the way there. As protondb shows that can't go all the way and tweaking is needed owing to the shifting PC compatibility in general and running software from one OS on a different one, it's the nature of the beast. Personally pushing towards monoculture on an open platform needs to be tempered, and there's a lot of debate previously for other places where that's relevant.
... and I'm concurring with the threadstarter. They could do nothing, donate to Heroic, or this. I'm not invested in this, just raised a keyword.
The arguments are tired, the word serves us well. They insist, yes, and forever remain hopeful that This Might Be the Year. Meanwhile, the reality exists for plenty already.
So many replies. Hello everyone. Beats me, just commenting as someone who won't pivot to the new thing. Outcomes matter, etc.
Supporting Heroic would appear on-brand given their old game/archival messaging, but I'm not learning marketing for free.
Not really against a first-party option, even. I do, however, find the inevitable user split notable.
> It'll mean GOG has to do less work
[citation needed]
GOG's launcher team is presumably already familiar with their codebase, already has a checkout, already has a codebase that's missing 0 features, has a user interface that already matches their customer's muscle memory, and presumably already has semi-decent platform abstraction layer, considering they have binaries for both Windows and OS X. Unless they've utterly botched their PAL and buried it under several mountains of technical debt, porting is probably going to be relatively straightforward.
I'm not giving Linux gaming a second shot merely because of a bunch of ancedata about proton and wine improvements - I'm giving it a second shot because Steam themselves have staked enough of their brand and reputation on the experience, and put enough skin in the game with official linux support in their launcher. While I don't have enough of a GOG library for GOG's launcher to move the needle on that front for me personally, what it might do is get me looking at the GOG storefront again - in a way that some third party launcher simply wouldn't. Epic? I do have Satisfactory there, Heroic Launcher might be enough to avoid repurchasing it on Steam just for Linux, but it's not enough to make me want to stop avoiding Epic for future purchases on account of poor Linux support.
Alternatively, work on developing protocols for game launchers instead. Get the Heroic Launcher devs and devs from other launchers to work on a common interface.
This comment and some of the other nearby ones have me confused if many people have actually tried GOG Galaxy?
This is one of the areas where GOG Galaxy has tried to stand out. It supports integrations with other launchers in Python: https://github.com/gogcom/galaxy-integrations-python-api
It's intended for the other direction of other launchers (or third party integrations with other launchers) feeding data to GOG Galaxy, but it's still one of the more interesting attempts in the wild of a launcher trying to be a little bit more than just a walled garden.
I don't know if in an Official Linux port of Galaxy if they'll try to find more ways to integrate beyond what they've already done with their Python API and how much they would be willing work with other launchers, especially Heroic, but of the big game stores, GOG seems one of the few that actually wants to try. Maybe they will. It would be nice to see. It's interesting seeing so many comments assume the worst of them, as someone who has played around with that Python API a little bit. (I was toying with a third-party Itch.io integration. Didn't get very far, but it was neat what seemed possible.)
I wouldn't say you need launchers necessarily, but installers/configurators maybe. Getting the directory structure and the right WINE or Proton dependencies is a bit involved sometimes. Especially when what you have are really OLD DOS or Windows installer files.
Had various issues with Heroic and whatever the other popular one was (Lutris, maybe). I personally don't need official support for a single launcher that tries to integrate every gaming platform ala Steam, GOG, Blizzard, Epic, Amazon. A single-platform launcher with native Linux support would be good enough for me.
Why they shouldnt develop version over which they have full control?
Meh, I use Lutris instead of Heroic.
I am happy that GoG will finally make its launcher available to Linux.
GNU/Linux gamers are always decrying GOG, saying they won't buy stuff from them because Galaxy doesn't run on GNU/Linux, now we're getting people saying GOG porting Galaxy to GNU/Linux is bad!? By Taranis, GOG just can't get a break, can they?