I think you're looking the wrong way. Feral likely don't want to push the publisher they get the rights from under a bus, I am still 99% certain they would need the permission of the original publishers, they can't just put it wherever they like.

Naturally, the larger publishers they go for do tend to shy away from GOG for whatever reason. However, this isn't a bad point for Feral, they know what sells on Linux and the games they go for just happen to be Steam-only.

Quoting: liamdaweI am still 99% certain they would need the permission of the original publishers, they can't just put it wherever they like.

That's what I always assumed too, but if publishers are the bottleneck, why did @ellie_feral say:

If you're wondering who to request GOG releases etc. from, you can certainly put your requests to us and we'll listen.

It would be logical then to say, that it's better to direct such requests to publishers who avoid GOG, since if they would agree, according to that above assumption, Feral wouldn't have any blockers either. Yet, he said that we should request it form Feral. Something doesn't fit here.

Read it and here's my opinions:

1. They are "porting > publising" companies not developer or game studios, do not owned any IPs and only publishing rights that being gave by IP owners (dev/game studios). Even do they wanted to publish any games DRM - free, the "last word" decision is on IP owners not them.

2. I think they stuck in the middle. Probably some IP owners have "unfriendly" things (hate is strong words) with GOG (or CDPR)? Probably IP owners prefer Feral to sell games on their own Feral store if they allowed DRM - Free?

3. GOG Galaxy problems, probably?

4. Some NDA-restriction they had to follow like cannot touch certain codes which DRM - Free is almost impossible without modified it.

5. Probably Feral thinks GOG lacking many stuffs than Steam. Let's be honest, Steam is de-facto of PC gaming.

6. Lastly, unknown causes...

Interesting choice of words from Feral, I do question why "it's not viable". Much as I wish to see many of their ported games released on GOG, I can quite imagine what that would mean: The Devs/Publisher would have to also release the Windows version, it wouldn't make sense to ignore 90%+ of the store's customer base.

@tonR: Can't argue about point 5. Steam is the first name in PC Gaming, however GOG is probably the largest fish in the sea of non-Steam stores and they released quite a few modern popular games. I think the main problem here is devs/publishers accepting DRM-Free, once that wall is down then there's a chance we'll also see Feral ports.

A good example in this case is Aspyr with their port for Observer and Layers of Fear. The Linux versions are both available on GOG and they are most likely so because the developer/IP Owner gave the green light.

Yeah, "not viable" sounds like they have some problem they can't solve at present. And that could fit what Liam said above that publishers are the bottleneck, except as I said, it contradicts what they are saying in the same reply, that we should ask them to release on GOG.

So my only conclusion is that they are either DRM inclined, and until that changes, DRM-free releases are not viable, or GOG somehow reject their games, which would be strange, since GOG aren't averse to releasing games only for some OSes but not for others, even if such versions are available elsewhere. I.e. if GOG can release only for Windows and not for Linux, they should have no problem releasing only for Linux and not for Windows.

Quoting: GuestAccording to a mac-using friend, Feral has always been very pro-DRM.

That would explain it, yes. It also could explain why they usually avoid answering direct questions about it. Admitting it openly is quite a bad PR for them. It also could be a combination of both (publishers' and their own attitude). Deciding that they are pro DRM-free, can set some backwards thinking legacy publishers against them.

my take on this:

1. Seems they are probably happy Enough with the sales they get from steam and their own store
2. They don't want to have another platform to add into their Support list
3. They are using steam-runtime heavily and don't want to commit to creating everything their own (does GoG have similar runtime lib thing?)
4. They need to convince the original developers/publishers to get into other stores

But maybe they are so against DRM.
They could also release their games on GoG some time after the release on Steam if they are afraid of everybody going to pirate their games, but i guess they just don't want because of the points above.

Its my random thoughts though, some interesting points here.

Steam runtime doesn't sound like a strong argument. In the laziest case, they can bundle the whole Steam runtime with their releases. Double Fine did that for Linux version of Grim Fandango GOG release.

It's quite a bloated approach though. It would be proper to only bundle what's strictly necessary (i.e. what's incompatible with system libraries and so on). But as a quick and dirty method it's possible, because Steam runtime consists only of FOSS libraries and is perfectly redistributable.

Quoting: Avehicle7887@tonR: Can't argue about point 5. Steam is the first name in PC Gaming, however GOG is probably the largest fish in the sea of non-Steam stores and they released quite a few modern popular games. I think the main problem here is devs/publishers accepting DRM-Free, once that wall is down then there's a chance we'll also see Feral ports.

A good example in this case is Aspyr with their port for Observer and Layers of Fear. The Linux versions are both available on GOG and they are most likely so because the developer/IP Owner gave the green light.

Simple. Some devs/publishers especially AAA ones are GREED! Excluding many great guys like Feral, Aspyr, VP and lots of Indies. They want "recurrent monetisation" a.k.a give them more monies. DRM is one of many ways to monetisation (eg. one copy per account, sharing restricting is much better).

I'm apologies to all GOL readers but i had to say it. Sometimes, I'm very disappointed with some GOL readers' delusion especially on AAA games and/or publishers.
For example, asking Feral to port the games which that game publisher is totally hate and openly hostile to Linux in general (except if they want to build Linux game servers). Why we need beg to them? They hate us (and our money).

But, if they apologies and/or showing "good faith" on Linux to win us (and our money) back. We should show the "love" back to them. Simple.

Quoting: tonRDRM is one of many ways to monetisation (eg. one copy per account, sharing restricting is much better).

Well, except it isn't. DRM doesn't increase sales as known. So it can't feed greed. What it feeds is usually feeling of control (false one at that).

Quoting: ShmerlWell, except it isn't. DRM doesn't increase sales as known. So it can't feed greed. What it feeds is usually feeling of control (false one at that).

Great counter-point. Still, Denuvo doesn't want to die and new DRM system becoming more insane.
One thing I'm forgot to mention here about devs/game studios greediness is:

MICROTRANSACTION & LOOT BOXES!

I'm totally forgot where I read it (blog or something), but it's state that DRM also one of contributing factor to rise lootboxes.

I don't think any publisher actually hates Linux. All they care is money, and if we don't have, say, Skyrim on Linux, that's because Bethesda asks too much for it. I also believe they ask the same amount of money for every platform (Steam Linux / Steam Mac / GOG Linux / GOG Mac), so if ports on Steam are hardly profitable, of course they won't be available on GOG.

And how DRM would help to use lootboxes? A game could be even FOSS and have them.

The good news is that lootbox mania is dying down. Battlefront 2 and Shadow of War have already got rid of lootboxes, and publishers will think twice if negative reviews and hatred from gamers are tolerable price for profit from lootboxes. Unfortunately, Denuvo is hated much less than lootboxes, and most people accept DRM. But Denuvo doesn't prevent games from being ported to Linux. RotTR is still Denuvo'd on Windows.

Here is my take on it: Feral get porting jobs with particular publishers/developers. The publisher would need to release the Windows version of the game on GOG *before* Feral could release the Linux port on GOG. Has any publisher who has been ported to Linux by Feral released the Windows version of the game on GOG? - Haven't checked but I predict: "No"

Quoting: g000hThe publisher would need to release the Windows version of the game on GOG *before* Feral could release the Linux port on GOG. Has any publisher who has been ported to Linux by Feral released the Windows version of the game on GOG? - Haven't checked but I predict: "No"

Let's assume this is correct (even though GOG happily release Windows only versions even when Linux ones exist, so they can do in reverse too?). It means, Feral should have no problem releasing their versions only through their site DRM-free, right? So why don't they?

Quoting: Avehicle7887A good example in this case is Aspyr with their port for Observer and Layers of Fear. The Linux versions are both available on GOG and they are most likely so because the developer/IP Owner gave the green light.

Yet they released KoTOR 2 in Steam but not in GOG even though the Windows version tis here too.

Quoting: ShmerlLet's assume this is correct (even though GOG happily release Windows only versions even when Linux ones exist, so they can do in reverse too?). It means, Feral should have no problem releasing their versions only through their site DRM-free, right? So why don't they?

Gog might not allow that in the current market situation and I could kind of understand if they didn't. The clueless masses have been indoctrinated with the notion that PC=Windows and all the games work on it. I don't think there are even any Mac exclusives like Marathon these days. Even if the OS requirement was clearly marked, there might be more accidental Windows buyers than Linux ones with the associated costs with refunds etc. Also a certain segment of their Windows-users would throw an epic tantrum. Admittedly amusing to watch for a bystander like me, but less so for the Gog staff.

tl;dr Gog should totally start releasing Linux-only games. :D

Edit: None of the above applies to Feral's own site of course.

-

Quoting: jensIf these are indeed their thoughts regarding piracy I would sympathize with them.

I wouldn't. They should know better. DRM doesn't deter piracy, it only causes those who use it lose sales, and it punishes paying customers.

Quoting: jensObviously they will never give you such an answer because words like this would end up prominently on the internet within no time and a certain very vocal part of the Linux community would immediately start shitstorms and damage their reputation.

Trying to hide shady behavior, wouldn't make their reputation better either. I'd say it would make it worse, since it's a method to pretend to be who they aren't. At least legacy publishers who insist on DRM have the guts to admit it.

Quoting: jensDisclaimer: these are just my assumptions and thoughts, no idea if this mirrors actual facts.

Yes, the above is just hypothetical too.

-

Quoting: jens

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: jensIf these are indeed their thoughts regarding piracy I would sympathize with them.

I wouldn't. They should know better. DRM doesn't deter piracy, it only causes those who use it lose sales, and it punishes paying customers.

Of course you don't agree ;)

Please stop with the condescension. Or are you calling him a pirate perhaps? Studies* clearly show software piracy doesn't cause the losses publishers claim (or believe) they do. These companies pay for DRM purely out of ignorance or plain stubborn refusal to accept the facts. And understanding and admitting this is not the same as advocating piracy.

* Use your favourite search engine to search for "eu study piracy" if you've somehow managed to miss this. Sorry, don't have time to look for a good source right now.