My guess is it's simple word play against a support rep to get them to say / "confirm" something by way of a "clarification".

I used to work in support, including managing it, for a company a long time ago and there was absolutely douchenozzles that behaved that way. Then they will die on the sword that a companies official stance is determined by a low paid, overworked, support worker's poor wording or even own confusion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Nice. I'll admit it never once occurring to me to use Kodi on the Deck, despite being a large Kodi fan and using it daily.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Fixing freedom of speech on Twitter? How so?

About the only things that come to mind are Trump and COVID misinformation type stuff being blocked/censored.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I love how this app has a game list showing which games are using what proton versions, it drives me nuts when I can't uninstall an old version of Proton because I explicitly set a particular version for a (mystery!) game in the past.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Exactly why I use Mint. There is absolutely no reason Linux has to be a chore for Desktop use, it's well-supported, it's been around long enough for me to know it'll continue being around for the foreseeable future, many of it's defaults match my preferences, and I generally like their stances on things like Snap while also making things like Nvidia drivers easy to install. Most of all, they're an excellent buffer between the user and Ubuntu; Sure, it makes some packages slower to roll out then Ubuntu, but also GOOD -- Mint tends to polish Ubuntu's occasional turds.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Honestly even the people that have a problem with their DRM stance on Hitman I feel like they're intentionally misunderstanding GOG's stance so they have something to be angry about. Well, not everyone, I'm sure there are plenty of people that honestly felt mislead and lied to; In this day and age people love to get worked up though, even if they never misunderstood in the first place. Maybe I've always had a different understanding of their DRM policies (which happens to coincide with GOG's perspective), who knows.

To me DRM, and DRM-free, refers to the store and the installers, essentially. Do you have to download the gog installer from gog for it to work? Can you copy it, does it call in (TO GOG), etc and soforth? I think they assumed people were on the same page that they weren't restricting you by their DRM free claims. You know, like how Steam games do (well, optionally, not all steam games do) or you know, Securom. I do understand people taking it quite literally that DRM-free should mean any form of rights management at any level in the game, which honestly, I agree with too. It probably should mean that.

Clarifying their stance like they are is probably the best choice, because they're not wrong, GOG has to continue to do business and new games tend to blur the lines like that. They've stated before that the well is running dry on old games, and why that was. Hopefully they take the approach to never add games like the most recent hitman again, or free to play, that kind of stuff, and just sidestep most of the problem that way. It could be wishful thinking.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: dibzI guess I remember reading somewhere that Verified required more then the game to just work and that there were other requirements like fonts and interface elements not being too small. I have a strong feeling that rather then tagging games into the playable category that hit those problems, they put them under Unsupported.

But then what's the "playable" category supposed to be for? Valve's definition has been that if it works just right, it's Verified, and if it works, but not just right, with problems like the ones you mention, it's Playable.
If they instead stuff all those in Unsupported, they've got two categories instead of three and they no longer have a category for things that actually don't work. It subtracts a lot of information, and worse, it's information they say they're giving you. If they're doing that it's a stupid move.
Maybe one of their QA people is just incompetent. Or maybe they're doing a thing where in some cases they send off an email to the developers about flaws and bung the game into Unsupported until they hear back--but you'd think they could leave it officially Untested, or maybe Playable, and just have an internal flag that they're waiting for feedback/changes.

I guess I took "Playable" as fixable, though it looks like other people clarified this in later comments (which made me not quite right regarding the definitions but not entirely wrong either that they'd want to distance themselves from them). In my head, fixable would mean it takes work to make it run but then would otherwise be similar to Verified; so it'd still be "unsupported" if things like too-small interface elements kept it unplayable after it was running properly. That said, it doesn't sound like that's the case, but honestly, I think it probably should be as it makes a lot of sense.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess I remember reading somewhere that Verified required more then the game to just work and that there were other requirements like fonts and interface elements not being too small. I have a strong feeling that rather then tagging games into the playable category that hit those problems, they put them under Unsupported.

It would make sense really, they probably want to distance themselves from games that they see as "a bad experience" by just straight out saying they're not supported.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Most of my library shows up as unknown, with 9% showing as Playable+

VERIFIED: 95 games (5.67%)
PLAYABLE: 53 games (3.16%)
UNSUPPORTED: 12 games (0.72%)
UNKNOWN: 1516 games (90.45%)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's a pretty commonly held belief that bringing something to linux exposes it to a higher breed of technical attacks, and frankly, it's not exactly wrong since more regular users are knowledgeable about doing advanced tweaks on their systems -- if not necessarily doing the hacks themselves.

That said, I've known linux people that have created cheat bots before. I hate to tell them, but those guys are ridiculously smart with windows too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments