Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Good Old Games Adds Mac OS X Support

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the now-i-can-play-games-and-be-hip-at-the-same-time dept.

OS X 124

SquarePixel writes "The nostalgic games seller Good Old Games has added Mac OS X support to its platform and a catalog of games to go with it. 'During its much-ballyhooed news-a-thon, GOG drew back the curtain on a new version of its service tailored to Macs, which brings with it 50 games (eight of which you receive free just for signing up) and some rather tempting deals. Speaking of, there's this insane 32-game pay-what-you-want Interplay special leading the charge in celebration of GOG's fourth anniversary.'" Unfortunately, Linux support doesn't seem to be in the cards just yet. On a list of requested site features, Linux support has gotten quite a few votes, but a GOG employee said, "Linux is a great platform, and we love how much passion you guys are showing for it here on our wishlist. ... If we're able to bring GOG.com games to Linux--and we're constantly evaluating ways that we can do this--we want to make sure that we're doing it the GOG.com way: simple, easy, and it 'just works.' I'm not telling you guys to give up hope--we know how much you want this--but what I am saying is that this is harder to support than it might seem initially, and we're not ready to move to support Linux officially just yet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WELL GOOD THEN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706959)

All right !!

Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (5, Insightful)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 2 years ago | (#41707037)

I was under the impression that a lot of the old games are merely dos version packaged with dosbox. I know I use some game I got from GoG under linux, just unpacking it and launching it "by hand".
Am I missing something? I don't see how hard it would be to just package the same thing with a linux version of dosbox...

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (5, Informative)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#41707149)

I think for a lot of the games that use DOSbox, it works great. However, now that we're over a decade into the 21st century, many games from 1998 - 2004 are considered classics and were not designed for DOS. Fortunately a lot of these games work pretty easily with WINE, but it of course would be nice for native Linux support. For the classic Bioware engine games (Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Icewind Dale...) there is a Linux client for GemRB, which is an open source community rewrite of the engine used for those games. You can purchase and download the GoG versions of those games, and load them up through GemRB (also works on Android!).

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41707347)

Dosbox is good enough that it can also run Win 3.1 quite well. Apparently it can also run Windows 95, but that's unsupported and I haven't tried it.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 2 years ago | (#41707801)

All well an good, but none of those games are designed for Windows 3.1. If you'll remember - in the Windows 3.1 days virtually no "real" games depended on Windows. Aside from basic things like card games and a few tetris clones and the like, you mostly exited out of Windows to play a game then booted back into Windows afterwards.

It wasn't until Windows 95 came along that you had a significant number of games that actually required WIndows.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41708125)

That was common, but not universal. The top selling PC game of the 1990s, Myst, was released in 1993 and was Windows only. Even after Windows 95 was released, many Windows games could still be run on 3.x.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41708211)

Yes there were a few games designed for Windows 3.1, but they were very few and even most of those got new versions done for win9x, like Myst.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41711311)

There is a reason for that, Win 3.x used WinG for graphics and it was VERY primitive and crash prone, DirectX came out with Win95 and was head and shoulders better than WinG.

Its just a shame that OpenGL dropped the ball and cared more about CAD compatibility and letting the GPU manufacturers use "shims" than they did about actually competing with DirectX because between 98-02 there was a real shot at taking gaming from DirectX and OpenGL being cross platform was really nice. Now between Windows and the X360 many games are built for DirectX first and OpenGL later if at all, just a damned shame.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41711523)

Win 3.x used WinG for graphics and it was VERY primitive and crash prone, DirectX came out with Win95 and was head and shoulders better than WinG.

DirectX came out after Win95, and NT already had GL support and NT's software GL renderer would run on Win95.

Its just a shame that OpenGL dropped the ball and cared more about CAD compatibility and letting the GPU manufacturers use "shims" than they did about actually competing with DirectX

You know what's really a shame? That 3dfx made GLIDE instead of starting with MiniGL, which offered Microsoft an opportunity to make their own shitty 3D API instead of being strongly encouraged to go OpenGL, which they certainly could have done. And the rest is history.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41713169)

Uhhh...GLIDE stomped the living shit out of OpenGL and as far as I know there wasn't any "MiniGL" at the time, because even at that point in the game Kronos was dropping the ball when it came to OpenGL by focusing more on CAD than gaming. This is the same problem Linux has, where the kernel devs bend over backwards to rush out a fix for some tiny server issue while the desktop suffers from shittier and shittier performance, its kissing the ass too much of the ones cutting the checks.

But I had both the Voodoo 2 and the Geforce 2 and frankly GLIDE just bitchslapped anything that OpenGL had put out, anything that MSFT put out as well. It wasn't until the Geforce 4 (and Radeon equivalent but I was an Nvidia man at the time) and 3DFX betting the farm on Dreamcast and losing that DirectX really took the top spot and again it was NOT because MSFT did it so much better, it was that Kronos did OpenGL that much worse.

Hell you look at the history of MSFT its one case after another of competition that royally fucked up rather than MSFT truly kicking it with a winning hand, from OpenGL to WordPefect coming out with a bad DOS port in 97 instead of building a native Windows program to Netscape putting out the utterly broken Netscape 4 which made IE 4 look like a slice of heaven by comparison. Time after time it wasn't MSFT doing it better, it was everybody else doing it worse, only now under Ballmer they have a fat moron for a "leader" that doesn't even have the sense to capitalize when others fuck up.

Fuck put ME in charge of MSFT and I'd capitalize the fuck out of it and I'd do a Steve Jobs on the company. there are soooo many areas where the competition is royally fucking up but Ballmer can only dream of being an ersatz Apple rather than focus on the task at hand and do his damned job!

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#41708339)

Civilization II was Windows only, could run in 3.1 though.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (3, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41710441)

Uh actually, it was released in 1993 for *Mac* only.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41711263)

The problem is we really need a DOSBox for Win9X because frankly there are a LOT of games that won't run in Windows OR Linux anymore from that era. For example GOG sells i76 but frankly its hit or miss, more miss, because the game used a hack that used the CPU timer as an event timer in game and it just doesn't know what to make of anything newer than a non HT P4. I've personally tried all the patches, MoSlo, there are simply several in game events that are impossible to get past, the same holds true for MechWarrior 3 (which is arguably one of the best of the series) where enemy tanks will "bounce" hundreds of feet in the air and make it impossible to win, and don't even get me started on all the hacks Sony used on FF VII.

So what we need is an emulator that will give us an emulation of what would be considered close to a perfect Win9X box, let's say a P3 1GHz with 384Mb of RAM and a choice of a Geforce 4 Ti or a Voodoo 2 along with a Soundblaster. This would give everyone the perfect system to run Win9X games on and with our systems being so powerful I don't see why specs that old couldn't be successfully emulated. Otherwise many of those cool games of the Win9X era will be lost forever because I can tell you its getting harder and harder to find decent systems from that era thanks to the cheap caps they used back then. its a damned shame that you can play the latest games, and the games from the DOS era, but that funky 16/32bit hybrid makes it a living hell trying to get many games from that era to run smoothly.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41707309)

No, you're not missing anything. Anyone who can run Dosbox can run GoG downloads with a small bit effort unpacking their archive.

What would be great is if GoG would distribute some classic Mac games like Marathon or Escape Velocity. Or the 640x480 Mac version of Dark Forces. These games need to be more easily available.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

j-beda (85386) | about 2 years ago | (#41707675)

Escape Velocity Nova seems to work on modern Macs:

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/evn/ [ambrosiasw.com]

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

j-beda (85386) | about 2 years ago | (#41707687)

Escape Velocity Nova seems to work on modern Macs:

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/evn/ [ambrosiasw.com]

Whoops, "almost modern" might be more accurate - it only lists 10.7 support.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41707719)

Which is about as relevant as noting that Doom 3 runs on Windows 7.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 2 years ago | (#41709827)

There is are TCs (Ambrosia-made, I think) for Override and the classic EV.

Marathon (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41707981)

If I remember correctly the game engine for the marathon series has already been open sourced and ported to Linux, you can grab the sources code (and precompiled binaries for OSX and Windows) from bungi's websites and the game files are a free download from there along with numerous mods.Sso I'm not sure how much more easily available they could be as for the others I don't know.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41708947)

What would be great is if GoG would distribute some classic Mac games like Marathon or Escape Velocity. Or the 640x480 Mac version of Dark Forces. These games need to be more easily available.

Marathon is available - Bungie released the engine as open source and it became Aleph One [bungie.org] . (I don't think bungie.org is the same as bungie.com, just a very popular fansite for all things Bungie, most popular of which is HBO).

It's also available for iOS, done with Bungie's blessing back in the day (the base game is free, in-app purcahses buy cheats and all that stuff). I think Marathon 2 might be out for it as well.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41711365)

Question: As someone who hasn't ever played the Marathon series what is good about it, other than it being made by the guys that made Halo? Looking at the screenshots other than the Blake Stone style bright colors it doesn't look any better than DOOM, so what is the appeal?

Don't get me wrong I love a good shooter even with bad graphics, Redneck Rampage is one of my favs (bought from GOG, check it out if you haven't gotten it already) but that is because it mixes humor, a great rockabilly soundtrack and TONS of cool secrets and crazy weapons to rise above being just another DOOM clone. I mean who can't love shooting a titty gun while drinking beer for health and listening to Mojo Nixon while you blast?

But what sets the Marathon series apart from the bazillion and one DOOM clones we had in that era. Better level design? Weapons? Story? i honestly want to know as I have more games than i have time to play now but I'll always enjoy a well made shooter.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41711537)

What set Marathon apart was the level of functionality. It had more functions with keybindings. Also, it had a story. Today, who cares? Play Halo, close enough. It doesn't have the soul, but nobody wants to read through pages of shit in a FPS any more.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711773)

This article is about to drop off the main page so my comment here is probably too late, but what the heck....

> As someone who hasn't ever played the Marathon series what is good about it

In relative terms, the marathon series was to macs what doom/quake was to PCs, ie; the FPS that everyone played, so there's a lot of nostalgia factor. Like other popular games, the series had a very large and healthy community, with lots of 3rd party mods and expansions, so a lot of people messed with it at one point or another. Additionally the marathon 1 engine was slightly more advanced than the doom 1 engine when it first came out.

In absolute terms, the main thing the marathon series is renowned for is the plot and the gameplay. Besides the raw length of spanning three games, the story had all sorts of twists, multiple characters with real character development, shifting allegiances, and TONS of side and background info that gave the player insight into what was going on behind the scenes in the world. It was basically the mass effect of the 90's. Unlike other FPSs of the day where the objective of every level was basically "kill everything", marathon levels had a number of possibilities like rescue/repair/explore/etc. The engine supported nonlinear level progression too, so you could build a "choose your own adventure" scenario with an arbitrary number of branches and loops. Also unlike other FPSs, bungie put a lot of effort into making the weapons have variety and be well balanced. There was no "big nail gun / bigger nail gun" crap- different weapons had different strengths and weaknesses depending on map and player style, so especially net play tended to be a lot more fun. Even the result of a starter pistol vs rocket launcher match was not always guaranteed.

Anyway, bungie open sourced everything ages ago. It was ported to osx/win/lin under the name of "Aleph One" and upgraded to support opengl/shaders and more modern graphics. There's also an ipad port, but they can't mention it's part of the same project or apple will yank it (some stupid rules on apple's part, I forget the details).

The community is largely dead now: the guys left working on the code are insufferable crusty old geeks and the forums are populated almost exclusively by 13yos whose parents won't buy them an xbox or counterstrike. They still put out new releases every once in a while though, I think it finally hit 1.0 last year or something.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711829)

Forgot to mention:

Although I disagree with a number of the things aleph one is doing (like defaulting to the graphics from the xbox port, which suck), it's still more than worth a look. Each scenario is only a couple hundred meg download. In terms of free opensource games, it's one of the best you can get a hold of.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709679)

No, you're not missing anything. Anyone who can run Dosbox can run GoG downloads with a small bit effort unpacking their archive.

What would be great is if GoG would distribute some classic Mac games like Marathon or Escape Velocity. Or the 640x480 Mac version of Dark Forces. These games need to be more easily available.

To get some of the older Mac games up and running, they'll need to recompile them. As they are, they won't run on Intel Macs unless emulated.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41709815)

Or they'd need an API level simulator of classic Mac OS. But there's no preexisting project for GoG to capitalize upon here.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41710475)

Well... an API level simulator and a PPC and/or 68k emulator. There is a preexisting project, but I doubt apple want to give out the source to Classic, and Rosetta unfortunately.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41711059)

The PPC and 68K emulators exist already. Sheepshaver and Basilisk. But they require a copy of Mac OS, which would need to be licensed or replaced.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#41709959)

Maybe you're already aware, but the Marathon trilogy is now available for the open source Aleph One engine, which is given a thumbs up by Bungie.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (4, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#41707907)

A list of games that work, and how:
http://www.gog.com/en/mix/great_gog_games_that_works_on_linux [gog.com]

A lot of Wine and open source ports/re implementation of the engines (was it icculus or something that did those?). Not just DOSbox.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41709175)

It's the same problem the eve guys had, the existing Linux emulation, translation layers and re-implementations are generally better than anything you can do on your own in a reasonable time frame, especially if, like GoG, you're talking about dozens or hundreds of games, so it's a 'we won't do it ourselves but we're not stopping you from using already working solutions' kinda thing.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#41710947)

I really don't see it as a problem for games, especially older ones where performance is less likely to be an issue.
games aren't going to suffer from being non native in quite the same way as an office app, having pretty much their own interface painted by the game engine.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#41708237)

gog.com doesn't sell only old games, despite the name. They launched the OSX version of The Witcher 2 among others.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41709183)

That's because it's the same company that made the witcher and GoG. That was their first big new AAA sort of release. And thus far I think their only one.

GoG is about good old games, but why give away 30% on your own title when you sell at least some copies through your own store?

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#41709409)

Well, lately they also have expanded to new games, mostly indies, but with a few AAA ones like Alan Wake.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41711483)

Well to be fair they have also been releasing a lot of the "newer" games in the Ubisoft catalog, such as Far Cry 1 & 2 and Assassins Creed. These are of course certainly not the latest and greatest but certainly newer than the games they usually carry.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41710583)

This is true and there is even a list [gog.com] of both those that work in DOSBox on Linux and those that work with WINE so I really don't see what the fuss is about. After all its not like you have to worry about DRM and with the games being...well old, most have been tested and you can always look at the list.

Although frankly this is what dual booting is made for, even the most rabid Linux users I've talked to admit Windows makes a good gaming OS so why not just keep the install that came with the OEM and have a dual boot? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41711569)

even the most rabid Linux users I've talked to admit Windows makes a good gaming OS so why not just keep the install that came with the OEM and have a dual boot? Seems like a no brainer to me.

I built my PC, you insensitive clod! I have a license for XP and I run an XP VM in vmware player, just upgraded to 5 and d3d support is noticeably better. (Something that was drawing incorrectly is Civ IV is now drawing correctly...) But I don't want to run XP32 on my six-core, 8GB RAM PC with a GT240. I imagine I'll have plenty of problems with early XP32-era games just due to my graphics drivers.

Somehow I got the idea a long time ago that virtualization was going to allow me to run multiple operating systems side by side on the bare metal and I've been trying to get there ever since. Will it take virtualization support in peripherals, do you think?

Re:Isn't it mostly dosbox ? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41713205)

Drinkypoo get a copy of Win 7 Home, makes a hell of a lot better gaming OS. If you don't care for the UI changes XP X64 is still supported and pretty nice, in fact I avoided XP completely by going from 2K to XP X64 (which is just 2K3 workstation) but for games Win 7 rocks HARD. Better memory management, superfetch and readyboost, DX 11, its just a better choice for gaming.

Although why you'd want to even attempt to run games in a VM is beyond me...is your PC really THAT slow? I have an AMD 1035T with 8Gb of RAM and an HD4850 (great card BTW) and I can boot from Win 7 to Win XP if I need to in less time than it takes for me to waltz over to the fridge and get me a coke. BTW if you insist on using XP 32 look into RAMDisks. My Asrock came with XFast RAMDisk and there are several free and pay RAMDisks out there that will let you use all that RAM in XP 32.

Although frankly now that I've finally switched to Audacity off my old Cubase I really don't miss XP anymore, its just not a great MSFT release like 2K,XP X64, and Win 7 X64. Hell look around for either the OEM or the family pack, both can be found cheap enough and will work great for games. BTW if you want a copy for your VM to laugh at Win 8 X64 is just $40 and it'll have the latest DirectX and support for 192Gb of RAM, and you can always use Start8 to kill that fugly metro shit. Now if you'll excuse me I feel like a little Torchlight 2 in Steam...happy gaming!

Bundle (5, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | about 2 years ago | (#41707039)

The pay-what-you-want is actually only for 20 games, and you have to pay more than the average. The 32 games you get for $35. Just pointing that out, still a pretty good deal. Played Castles last night - exactly as I remembered it, incomprehensible. Might have to read the manual to remember how to get my idiots to actually start building; the music transported me directly back to 1991, though. Love that awesome midi sound.

Re:Bundle (1)

Infernal Device (865066) | about 2 years ago | (#41707333)

Have those games been updated to run on 10.8?

IIR, Apple got rid of some legacy graphics support that those games needed to run (256-color mode, Rosetta support). I'd hate to blow $32 and have a bunch of games that were unplayable and eating up drive space.

Re:Bundle (2)

ram.loss (151102) | about 2 years ago | (#41707639)

As usual, the summary is a bit misleading. The Mac support includes only 50 games none of which are part of the interplay "pay what you want" offering. The two announcements were conflated into one. The real Mac promo is here:
Mac promo [gog.com]

Re:Bundle (1)

ram.loss (151102) | about 2 years ago | (#41707717)

Ooops, I've found the real announcement too:

GOG.com goes Mac [gog.com]

Re:Bundle (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41707827)

Good question. If it works, I'm going to be buying Syndicate. Absolute classic game!

Re:Bundle (2)

Halo1 (136547) | about 2 years ago | (#41707995)

Have those games been updated to run on 10.8?

In general, the games never ran and never will run directly under any version of Mac OS X (or even "classic" Mac OS), and hence do not have to be updated. The currently released games fall into four categories:

  • They are DOS/Windows games, but are supported by ScummVM [scummvm.org] . The GOG installer will install ScummVM to run them. Before you yell "those are not native Mac ports!", keep in mind that those games were originally basically a lot of sound, graphics and a script, bundled with a DOS-based script interpreter. ScummVM is a modern replacement for those script interpreters (it's also used on the Windows for most of those games).
  • They are other DOS games. These are packaged so they run under DOSBox [dosbox.com] . These are obviously not native Mac ports either, but they're handled exactly the same by GOG on Windows. It's the same principle as using a Super Nintendo emulator to run old SNES games.
  • They are Windows games. I'm only aware of The Witcher and King's Bounty being in this situation. The Witcher is based on Wine, I don't know about King's Bounty but I guess it's the same (but it may also be a native Mac port). In this case it's mostly a matter of not being able to play the games at all, or playing them under Wine. Your call.
  • They are dual Mac/Windows releases. I'm only aware of The Witcher 2 being in this situation.

That said: ScummVM, DOSBox and Wine all work under 10.8. Since they are emulation layers to some extent, chances are actually higher that they will keep working with future Mac OS X releases (or at least can be fairly easily updated) than with so-called native ports. At least every boxed Mac game I ever bought is gathering dust (from Lemmings for System 7 to Deus Ex and No One Lives Forever for Mac OS X/PowerPC) (*) (**), while I can still play every single DOS/Windows game I ever bought thanks to DOSBox and Wine.

Since The Witcher 2 was only just released, I think it's a good bet that it will run under 10.8. Also, like the other person said, the Interplay promo does not include any of the Mac-ified games. All DOSBox-based ones are trivial to get running though, and the Windows ones generally aren't that hard either (I've been buying and playing gog.com games on my Mac for several years now).

(*) ok, one exception: Space Quest IV for Mac, which is supported by ScummVM...
(**) I know about Sheepshaver, but it wasn't been very stable when I tried it

Re:Bundle (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41707449)

Love that awesome midi sound.

Does GoG configure Dosbox with Timidity, FluidSynth, or Munt? For good Midi sound on dosbox you either need a good software synthesizer like the above, or a real hardware midi synth plugged into your computer.

Dosbox does emulate the OPL3 for Adlib/soundblaster compatible FM synth, which is still pretty sweet. IMO, the FM synth in Dosbox is better than some period OPL3 clones, but not as good as a real Yamaha OPL3.

Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (3, Informative)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 2 years ago | (#41707047)

If you want all 32 games you'll have to pay $34.99. Not bad at all, but not "pay what you want." Also seems to me that there were a lot more games from back in the day with the Interplay name on them, not just these 32.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707163)

here's a starting point...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interplay_games

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707183)

It's worth nothing that "pay what you want" doesn't include amounts above $2500.01 either.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41707855)

No pay what you want is only 8 games.
More than the average (currently 13.72) is 20 games
and $34.99 is the full bundle.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 2 years ago | (#41707865)

Also seems to me that there were a lot more games from back in the day with the Interplay name on them, not just these 32.

Interplay was also a publisher. Among other things, they published Blizzard's earlier games, such as The Lost Vikings and The Lost Vikings 2: Norse by Norsewest.

The latter was on the Interplay 15th Anniversary collection in the 90s, but Interplay's then-new owners sold their publisher rights in 2001ish.

There were also the various Star Trek games, whose license likely ended years ago.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707875)

Well, it would be "pay what you want above 34.99" for all the 32 games...
Still a pretty fair deal IMO, especially considering the starting and beat the average packages.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708187)

They may not have licenses for all their old games.
E.g., their right to sell the Fallout games ends at the end of 2013 [kotaku.com] , so they'll want to milk it while they can.

As far as I can tell, Interplay is mostly a afterimage of old IP these days - the developers have moved on to other studios.
Both Obsidian and inXile emphasized their Interplay heritage in their recent Kickstarters.

Re:Not actually "pay what you want" for all 32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708601)

If you want all 32 games you'll have to pay $34.99. Not bad at all, but not "pay what you want." Also seems to me that there were a lot more games from back in the day with the Interplay name on them, not just these 32.

The most obvious omission being The Lost Vikings!

Allahu Al Akhbar! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707121)

I'm already downloading Mac version of The Witcher: EE.

Yeehaw!

Teh Google in the Tank (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707321)

And floundering. Won't somebody please save it!

S O S

It's over-inflated self has burst and it is going down unless YOU help now. Buy Teh Goog. Save it and the internet!

Work on the dropping of Classic/PPC support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707331)

Since Lion onwards OSX PPC support has been dropped as well as the old OS9 and below games. Plenty of games and apps have been lost due to poor emulation. As for Linux don't support Ubuntu because of their Amazon betrayal.

Re:Work on the dropping of Classic/PPC support (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41708145)

As for Linux don't support Ubuntu because of their Amazon betrayal.

Which physical goods shopping site should Canonical have chosen instead of Amazon?

No such thing as a Linux OS (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707335)

What people in the Linux community tend to forget is there is no such thing as the Linux operating system. There are dozens of operating systems based upon Linux, but there isn't any one Linux platform to target. If GOG rolls out support for, say, Ubuntu, they will have hundreds of Arch users still nagging them for support. If they support Red Hat, they leave Debian out in the cold. It's virtually impossible to support all Linux desktop distributions because there's no lowest common denominator and the various projects are in constant flux.

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41707751)

No.

There is indeed a single Linux.

There's just one X. One kernel. One SDL. Beyond that you might have a couple choices for things like sound or the desktop API.

It's not quite as bad as or "fragmented" as some people like to make out.

  libvorbis is libvorbis regardless of what distro you're running.

Packaging is different but that's something you can let individuals handle. Allow Debian or Redhat users the lattitude and they will make their own packages.

Linux is no more in flux than any other desktop PC that can have any combination of various versions of various libraries.

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#41707811)

What version of libc? What shell? Why do I need X to install a package... I'm a linux user! Is X running in a framebuffer or hardware accelerated? Do we only have MESA installed?

Also, there is NOT only one kernel. Depending on what you are running, it may even be as drastic as 2.4.* vs 2.6.*.

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 2 years ago | (#41707951)

Also, there is NOT only one kernel. Depending on what you are running, it may even be as drastic as 2.4.* vs 2.6.*.

You mean 2.6.x.y vs 3.6.z right? :P I mean, that only spans the last 15 months...

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (1)

adri (173121) | about 2 years ago | (#41707929)

Dude. Please go and speak to a game developer about the screwed up graphics driver nightmare under windows.

Then realise that the same exists on Linux.

A lot of effort goes into the Windows + (all the different versions of graphics drivers out there) nightmare. Linux would at _least_ be that kind of screwed up to maintain. That's a lot of manpower for no specific revenue targets. No PHB is going to agree to that.

Now if Linux had a sane, stable graphics environment that provided the same experience on all platforms.. everything would be sweet. But PCs don't let you get away with that.

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709405)

You might as well claim there's only one Windows since Windows 95 (R2) and Windows 8 both have the same Internet Explorer. #fail

Re:No such thing as a Linux OS (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 2 years ago | (#41707877)

Actually the kernel pretty much IS the OS. A lot of distributions throw their own software packages atop that OS but they're all Linux. Same binary format and you can pretty much expect that they're all running an x.org server for graphics.

Also - many programs already have binary Linux distributions that work on just about any target platform. You just use statically compiled libraries and for the most part you're good.

Even then, if you want something that even depends on some things within a distribution you can target Red Hat and Debian and cover 90% of the market. Ubuntu, Mint, and Debian all basically fall under the same structure and Redhat, Fedora, and CentOS all fall under the same structure. Outside of those main few the userbase drops considerably and for many on systems like Arch or Gentoo they're the types that will figure out how to make it work regardless.

Security vulnerability in static libs (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41708181)

You just use statically compiled libraries and for the most part you're good.

Until someone discovers a security vulnerability in zlib, libpng, libjpeg, or one of the other statically linked libraries.

Re:Security vulnerability in static libs (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 2 years ago | (#41708757)

Which would only affect people running that particular application while it was running. At that point it becomes a security issue with the game - not the library. They recompile and issue it along with their standard game patches.

Does It Include Breakout? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707359)

Does it include Breakout? Super Breakout? [youtube.com]

This is news? (-1, Troll)

narcc (412956) | about 2 years ago | (#41707375)

Small company supports obscure operating system.

Stop the presses!

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707463)

Small company supports obscure operating system.

Small company starts selling old mass-market Mac games which you couldn't otherwise buy any more.

GoG don't write their own games, they're a DRM-free retailer selling other companies' games, mostly old ones that have been out of print for years but a few newer ones too.

Re:This is news? (1)

Halo1 (136547) | about 2 years ago | (#41708057)

Small company starts selling old mass-market Mac games which you couldn't otherwise buy any more.

No, they start selling old mass-market DOS games now also packages with DOSBox for Mac, rather than only with DOSBox for Windows (or with ScummVM for Mac, or with Wine, or in very few cases a native Mac port -- but the last category aren't really old games until now).

Re:This is news? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41708227)

Small company starts selling old mass-market Mac games which you couldn't otherwise buy any more.

Sadly no.

Old mac games that haven't been ported aren't going to be of any use to owners of modern macs without an emulation soloution. Afaict there are no free clones of classic macos (while there is a free clone of dos) so selling old mac games with an emulation soloution would require apple's coperation.

Afaict what has actually happened here in most cases* is that GoG has started bundling old dos games with a mac version of dosbox and a mac installer as well as bundling them with a windows version of dosbox and a windows installer.

GoG don't write their own games, they're a DRM-free retailer selling other companies' games, mostly old ones that have been out of print for years but a few newer ones too.

GoG is actually a subsidary of a game developer but the vast majority of the games they sell are indeed third party.

*I think a few games do have native mac ports but they are by far the exception.

Re:This is news? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41711589)

Afaict there are no free clones of classic macos (while there is a free clone of dos) so selling old mac games with an emulation soloution would require apple's coperation.

Apple offers downloads of System 7, that's not the problem. The problem is that the emulator requires a ROM image, which Apple does not offer for download.

Re:This is news? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41708197)

Small company supports obscure operating system.

Stop the presses!

The announced Mac OS X support, not Linux support.

Oh, I see what you were trying to do there.

Re:This is news? (0)

narcc (412956) | about 2 years ago | (#41708607)

Yeah, if you combine the market share of the last three major versions you get something like the market share of Windows Vista. That's not obscure at all.

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41712849)

You're a retard.

Support System Shock II... (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#41707389)

... and you've got my money. Best game ever.

Re:Support System Shock II... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707521)

Look at you, pathetic creature of meat and bones, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors.

Re:Support System Shock II... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708079)

Nah.

Re:Support System Shock II... (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 years ago | (#41712339)

SHODAN rocks!!

Re:Support System Shock II... (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 years ago | (#41712315)

Have you seen http://sshock2.com/ [sshock2.com] ? ;)

Already playing for years on the Mac via DOSBox (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707697)

A lot of these games I've already been playing for years on the Mac via DOSBox. Only I'm running OSX 10.4 or 10.5 and GOG requires 10.6.8 or later. What are we paying for again?

Re:Already playing for years on the Mac via DOSBox (3, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41707919)

Presumably these would be licensed copies of the games. That and the games packaged in a way that doesn't require torrenting and then fiddly set-up.

Maybe I'm confused (1)

Coffeesloth (669850) | about 2 years ago | (#41707883)

Maybe I'm confused but isn't OS X simply Apple's version of Linux? I realize this is a simplistic view but I don't see why they wouldn't be able to create a package for Linux.

Re:Maybe I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707977)

No, it's Apple's version of BSD.

Re:Maybe I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708093)

Mainly a variant of BSD, Cocoa, & no X11 are some of the hurdles in Mac -> Linux porting

Re:Maybe I'm confused (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708153)

No, it's BSD underneath, but these games are all compiled with Xcode, so it's using the native OS X libraries and API's for everything. While a large amount the architecture of the kernel and BSD subsystem is easily emulated or even mapped to compatible API's under Linux, the native labries would need to be emulated in a similar way to WINE.

Re:Maybe I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709739)

You're not confused. You're stupid.

Re:Maybe I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710479)

The OS X kernel is a hybrid of the Mach and BSD kernels.

Steam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708257)

Steam is coming to Linux, for reals this time. GOG can go fsck themselves. Anything they have that I'm even remotely interested in can be brought up in DosBox or WINE.

If they were really interested in a Linux platform, they'd do it. The work to port it to Mac is no more difficult than what's involved to port it to Debian or any other flavor of Linux. When they grow the fsck up and stop playing favorites, we'll talk... until then, I will go right on playing games they want to sell, without any trouble, and without giving them one single red cent.

480GB torrent says it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708817)

thanks for all the fish

Re:Steam (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#41711077)

Anything they have that I'm even remotely interested in can be brought up in DosBox or WINE.

sure, if you have those floppies hanging around from 1992. if you bought them in the first place.

Re:Steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711287)

Whether anyone did or not is inconsequential. They want to sell a product in an environment where that product is freely available to anyone willing to put forth the effort. In that environment, they have bent over backward to court only a subset of their potential customers, snubbing others. It's bad business; it's favoritism, plain and simple... and they can fsck off.

Re:Steam (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#41711353)

you have essentially said that they need to produce a product that can compete with free, because if it's cheaper / easier to steal it, you'll do that. it's pretty hard for a company to compete with free, so now you understand why they aren't producing a linux version.

Re:Steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711437)

The rest of the gaming industry, not to mention the music and movie industries, don't seem to be having too much trouble making money in the very same market. And, for the record, Windows is far and above the platform of preference for most game pirates -- after all, Windows is what most games are designed to run on.

Re:Steam (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#41711661)

so your rational is they since they are making money, it's okay for you to steal it? or what the heck are you even saying?

i didn't say anything about industries making or not making money in the face of piracy. i said linux users like you aren't helping your cause, when you clearly state your willingness to steal the software. if i'm a game company, i'm thinking,

1. if i don't price it how he wants, he's going to steal it
2. if i don't package how he wants, he's going to steal it
3. if i don't provide equal support for linux, he's going to steal it

why would i support linux again? anything you have an interest in you'd have already pirated right? you clearly have no qualms about it.

Windows is far and above the platform of preference for most game pirates -- after all, Windows is what most games are designed to run on.

it might have something to do with the fact that there's practically no games worth pirating on linux.

I love GOG! (1)

Goat of Death (633284) | about 2 years ago | (#41708383)

Every bit of feedback I've ever sent them has gotten implemented. When first using the GOG downloader I sent them feedback that it's annoying I had to queue individual bonus content pieces one at a time. Few months later they updated and now you can add all bonus content for a game in one click. Later I gave the feedback that for any Dosbox based games they should have Mac versions. Lo and behold, today my purchase of Syndicate I can now download for Mac as well.

GOG rules!

They put man-years of effort into Apple OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708565)

but they couldn't do it for Linux. Fuck you, GOG.

Neeraj is dishonest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708979)

Neeraj ripped me of Rs 10,000.

Used to be a gamer. . . (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#41711213)

GOG drew back the curtain on a new version of its service tailored to Macs, which brings with it 50 games (eight of which you receive free just for signing up) and some rather tempting deals.

. . . but unfortunately 49 of those games are variations of Tetris. The 50th one is that cool puzzle game with the Apple logo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk8hxjpnUiw [youtube.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?