It's all a matter of opinion, in the end. Some people choose Mac, some, Windows, and some Linux.

(Edited to be less confrontational.)

To be honest, I don't see why GOG needs to hire more people or spend more money to "support" Linux. I'm a Linux user who has bought dozens of games here, and play all of them just fine.

Any DOS-based game from here, once installed, can be run on any platform, natively, that runs DOSBox (which is damn near everything). I play some of my older GOG games on my Ubuntu-based laptop, my Arch-based netbook and my Maemo-based cell phone. So "support" isn't really needed for those, per se.

Also, the vast majority of the non-DOS games (at least ones more than a couple years old) run just fine under WINE. Between WINE, DOSBox and ScummVM (plus source ports for games like Descent and Duke Nukem 3D), I'm running all of my GOG games just fine.

If it means raising prices or taking time/effort away from getting more good old games on the website, I just as soon leave the "support" for systems like Linux and other to the community.

This. Even if gog announced and reminded at every opportunity that they only distribute and don't officially support Mac and Linux versions, they would still be badmouthed for it.

But if the publisher where they get the games from assures them that there is a working Mac version than they don't really need much own support. They could just try it and in case there come too many complaints they remove it from the games list again. That's what a reseller would do, they also sell products from others and refer to the support of their supplier. Happened to me with amazon.

It really, really isn't. It's about choosing the right tool for the right job, and if gaming is a passion of yours, then you do not buy a Mac. It's as simple as that. Macs are probably good for a lot of things, but gaming is not one of them.

Complaining about PC-based stores not selling Mac games is like showing up at the Le Mans in a Hummer, and complaining about not being able to enter it in the race.

No it's not. Opinion doesn't change what a Mac is capable of.
What difference would this make? Any of this? Amazon's support is second to none. If you want support at 9pm on a Sunday Amazon delivers. You're comparing a mini with a Ferrari and wondering why it can't do the same when they've both got 4 wheels and an engine.

It's a matter of opinion in terms of what people want to do with the platform they choose.

Yes. but in this case it's plainly established that they want to play games on their computer. Although that said, I still can't think of one thing a Mac can do you can't do with a Windows PC... other than hand over considerably more money.

While I wouldn't personally touch a Mac with a ten-foot-pole, I'd argue that different systems do different things for different people. Can a Windows box be rigged to do anything a Mac or Linux box can, or vice versa? Sure. Will it always be as good at those things or as useful to certain people? Not hardly.

EDIT: Also, in terms of this site, or gaming, a Mac is a totally viable system depending on what you want. GOG gaming... a Mac can do it just as well as a PC. And with Steam support, it's gaining ground. Just because you may not choose it for that, doesn't mean it can't do it.

Usability is different but technical differences are rather limited. Photo and graphics enthusiast like to pretend they are still somehow superior, but its mostly an ego thing. But there is something to be said about someone wanting a system with stricter hardware and software selections though. In the sense that there are fewer things you can do to a mac there is less to go wrong. People are willing to pay for a more dependable ride. I wouldn't pay it, but then thats why I run linux. I don't want pay for a mac or even windows . The only thing I cant do is play the full windows spectrum of games.

Now if that didn't HAVE to be the case would I be interested. Yes. I would be interested in being able to do everything. And given that that is a technical possibility AND developers are making games with other versions, then its not crazy to be interested in having them offered by a company that likes to offer extras.

There are two kinds of games people need to think about when asking GOG to offer other games. There are games with linux/mac versions, and games without. Asking GOG to some how make old games work on other OS'es is unrealistic. Even if it were possible in a given instance they would be forced to offer support because it would end up being their product.

Asking for new games like Trine that clearly have a linux versions available is not asking for something wildly unrealistic. There is the support issue which is very off putting for someone not wanting to get their hands all dirty supporting other OS'es. I don't think they should offer support for them, but toss them in and say "there you weirdos go. No support. Go bug the dev's.I'd be fine with that."

One problem I see is that some of these devs is that they seem to be using it as a way to get people to buy it from a specific place. Kind of a "Buy it from us get the linux version." Its hard to offer something they want to keep for themselves. Ultimately I think it should be up to the developers to offer other versions to people that have purchased their game. ID did this repeatedly. The runtime installers for Q3 and RTCW were available for linux and PC on their own website. All you had to do was have the game data files and you could run your game in both environments. Frankly I'm a little off put that devs aren't doing this now even though they have created both versions. Don't try and sell me two copies because I have two OS'es,

BTW people there is a wishlist for this and for a MAC/Linux users forum in the wishlist. Go vote.

No, it can't.
I don't disagree, apart from the support issue for the reasons I've stated above.

It doesn't have Direct x and is limited to OpenGL, beyond that yes it can. It not being an ideal gaming platform because the economics and momentum aren't favorable does not mean it is technically incapable.

If games were created for Mac then yes, they'd run on Mac. Stands to reason. That is, however, very definitely not the completely ludicrous statement made by cuppsy.

WINE and DOSBox, much? The more recent games, sure. But the bulk of the GOG library can be played fairly easily on a Mac. I can't help but feel like because you don't use a Mac, you're just covering your ears and eyes and stating it can't be done.

It's not a matter of ignoring evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. On the contrary. I know about Wine and Boxer. Boxer seems reliable. But gaming via Wine, especially for older titles, which were all over the place, programming-wise, is far from a perfected science. You certainly wouldn't convince GOG to support Macs because Wine exists. If anything it highlights the problems they'd be faced with.