Compiling their own tool for linux (ie advancing cross-platform support) is not "fragmentation".

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.

Obligatory xkcd

https://xkcd.com/927/

Yea. Good and bad, I'm exhausted. The fragmentation argument goes back to the creation of 'init'.

Cheapshot: Good Old Games (as long as our proprietary software functions)

> Cheapshot: Good Old Games (as long as our proprietary software functions)

False. That's literally the point of GOG. You can download the games directly from their website, install them, and run them without running any GOG software. GOG could vanish tomorrow and you'd still be able to play every game you purchased, as long as you backed up their installers somewhere.

Like I said, cheap: I didn't think much about it. I've enjoyed downloading those archives. I've really enjoyed using Heroic instead.

I appreciate the first party reference and backup, but I'll stick with this for the consolidation.

That's not what "cheapshot" means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap%20shot

What would you prefer? I couldn't edit it now if I wanted.

Is GOG, the business entity, here to defend itself? I'd like to first express my appreciation for their efforts. Then... repeat my critical statements to them shortly after.

Oh to private/not beholden to shareholders, open to build for a ~small~ growing target that has largely moved on without you. I'm envious, really. GOG is a leader like Valve, surely!

The issue here is that this is an existing "standard", by the logic of the comic. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already unofficial Linux ports of this launcher to begin with.

Also, even if it was fragmentation I'd prefer competition to ensue. I don't want another Steam situation, even if in theory a launcher isn't holding any valuable data hostage.

Eh, I don't need the comic to be a perfect fit.

It's not a port, but Heroic is an implementation of the GOG ~standard~ store as a Linux user. I will use it until I can't.

Why? Precisely because of what you say: I don't want another Steam. Heroic does others like Epic, too; open consolidation like this is my ideal.

I'm not really against GOG taking a swing. I'm comfortable calling it a reference/backup, but I do prefer something like Heroic.

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?

Said absolutely nothing about obligation, raising the same decades-long observation. The users will see strife [and joy]. That's it. Forgive me if I don't want to go over it again.

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.

Fellas, is it fragmentation to natively support linux?

Let me know when you finish with your 90000th spin of Debian. I'll be over here playing w/ Heroic

Fragmentation is a good thing, it's called competition, and user choice. If you don't like it, buy a Mac or something.

You say this 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.

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.

> including a segment that want one true way and all that fragmentation to go away.

I think there are several segments that want one true way (their way).

... 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.

Why would they join another project that's worse than their own solution, over which they have full controll?

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.