Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Hal_KadoTo be honest I fully support this business model, some of Sony's exclusives are the best games of the generation. In a world where everything has to be continually monetized I'm not sure some of these games would have been made without Sony.

Nothing stopped Sony from not making them exclusives besides their anti-competitive market control thirst. So why do you support such trash model? Any normal publisher pays for making the game, and then profits when it's sold in as many stores as possible.

But the likes of Sony are not normal publishers, they abuse their market position, to increase lock-in with walled garden exclusivity. It's a vertical monopolization effect. They merged publishing and distribution business into one, and that hurts rather than helps gaming industry. The argument that "we need that to make games" is simply bunk used by oligopolists, to whitewash anti-competitive practices.

You mean like Valve whose platform only exists because of this exact behavior?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Since they have fixed the game:
- Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Then:
- The Witcher 3 (Unlikekly, but it still should be ported by someone and released on GOG, too)!
- Darksiders 3 (THQ Nordic seems quite Linux-friendly. But do a GOG release, too)!

Edit:
And when they're already porting Darksiders 3: Of course they should port Darksiders & Darksiders 2 (and release it on GOG), too!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Delicieuxz[…]

I can't say if you're a troll or just uninformed. If you're just uninformed, then some basic information:
GNU General Public License 3 [External Link]
Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide [External Link]

The official FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? [External Link]
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? [External Link]
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? [External Link]

I'm done with this discussion, have a nice day.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

However, the only case I see that regards modifying GPL-licensed software is the Welte in AVM vs Cybits case, and that case ended with the court ruling that, contrary to the GPL licenser's claim, the defendant was in-fact entitled to modify the GPL software and people were entitled to use the software after it had been modified.

The GPLv2 licenser (Welte) did argue in favor of the defendant and the ruling was in favor of the GPLv2. AVM was trying to deny the right to modify GPLv2 software (which would be a GPL violation). So I really don't see your point and it definitely does not argue against anything I said (GPLv2[/v3] are legally solid and the license can be terminated after a violation).

Longer version: Summary of the case so far [External Link]

And it is not true, that this is the only case about modifying GPLv2 code. As I said, Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies (2009-2012) was about

[…]
embedded in electronic products or by itself – that contains BusyBox or a derivative work of BusyBox

[…]

What was the result: Westhinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC filed for an alternative procedure to bankrupcy allowed under California law [6], thus exiting the main lawsuit. U.S.D.J. Scheindlin found «Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff» [4]. All other companies reached an out of court settlement [7].[quote] Again in favor of the GPLv2 and the court even prohibits the distribution of a product containing the GPLv2 code after its violation.

So no, it has nothing to do with arrogance, I simply try to state facts. And facts are that the GPLv2/v3 are legally solid and their clauses were confirmed in courts (GPLv3 not so much, yet, but there are cases, too).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Delicieuxz[…]

Let's quickly wrap up this off-topic discussion: The GPLv2/v3 are in conformance with the law in the EU & the USA. They have undergone legal scrutiny in courts (GPL Enforcement Cases [External Link]) and the rights can also be revoked (e.g. Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies (2009-2012)).

Quoting: DelicieuxzMany publishers write digital licenses knowing that they don't count for much beyond their psychological influence to invoke or prevent certain end-user behaviours - which is something publishers still consider to be valuable.

Of course, I'm not questioning that. I'm simply stating that there are legal reasons to revoke a license.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DelicieuxzWhat property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

Question: How are then OpenSource licenses supposed to work, e.g. GPLv3?:

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: meggermanCan anyone confirm if this works with Games not installed on /home drive ?

This should work without a problem (my games are on a /mnt/-mounted partition). But you have to allow access to the directory with --filesystem=<DIRECTORY> (either via flatpak run for each application start or flatpak override to persist the setting) or else you won't be able to access it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Note: I've not used Flatpak at all myself, nor have I tried out this Steam Flatpak as I don't want any issues with my existing install.

There shouldn't be any conflicts. The Steam-Flatpak doesn't have any access to your home folder (except to ~/.var/app/com.valvesoftware.Steam). Everything that gets created by Steam will reside inside this folder though you can share additional folders with the --filesystem argument of flatpak run.

But it'll still need some work until everything works OOTB: Source games just don't start because of the S3TC extension missing, Borderlands 2 & GRID Autosport crashed. Rocket League started but the textures were missing (again S3TC I guess). Maybe with the proprietary nVidia driver it works better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They changed the tiers: Important changes to the reward tiers [External Link]

I want to thank you for your trust, support and help with this project! To celebrate our first small victory, we decided to add more prizes to the reward tiers:

• Everybody who chooses ALBIUS WATCHMAN ($35) and ALBIUS BURGOMASTER ($45) will also receive the comic book and digital art book.


• Our OST (now already 50 minutes of music) by Adam Skorupa, the composer of The Witcher will be received by everybody who chooses ALBIUS WATCHMAN ($35) and ALBIUS BURGOMASTER ($45).


• Everybody selecting the EARLY BIRD — MYTHS OF TERMINUM tier ($65) will receive a CD copy of the music.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

CAYNE is now available on GOG.com, too! [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments