Quoting: scaineShmerl, how do you feel about the revelation that your anti-DRM stance is so vehemently articulated and you're so immovable in your views that you're actually encouraging pro-DRM behaviour from others?

See the last paragraph from Salvatos just two hours ago
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/feral-interactive-have-no-plans-to-put-their-linux-ports-on-gog.11987/comment_id=125993

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Hamish

Quoting: jensSorry, re-reading your posting several times, I don't get the essence. Would you mind to explain?

Sure, no worries. It is just that Linux users very often tell Windows users that their choices are bad and that they need to improve, and I can't help but feel that a lot of the people upset with Shmerl would be fine seeing the exact same attitude expressed if he was arguing against Windows usage rather than using Steam.

Ah, thank you ;)

Yeah, guess you are right, certainly. Though me personally thinks that everybody should just use what fits them best. Most of my co-workers use Windows. They are happy using Windows, I'm happy because they know how to do their jobs efficiently. I'm using Linux at work, my co-workers are happy that I get my job done. We have nearly no discussions which is the best OS, just in the line of "this works slightly better on Linux, this works slightly better on Window". Imho both OS's have their strength and weaknesses, they is always more than one way leading to Rome. Diversity (until a certain degree) is good and welcome.

Same here. I think this is really just personal taste and preference. Fortunately Linux supports lots of use cases, everybody should just use it the way they want.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Hamish

Quoting: jensIt actually makes me kind-of sad to read again an implication that my choices are bad and that I need to improve.

I am sure quite a few Windows users say that about Linux users all the time, and not always without good reason.

Sorry, re-reading your posting several times, I don't get the essence. Would you mind to explain?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlNot sure where why you got such impression, that's surely not the case.

Thank you.

Quoting: ShmerlWhile I consider such choice bad, it doesn't necessarily make people bad, people make wrong choices too and they can do something to improve it in this case.

It actually makes me kind-of sad to read again an implication that my choices are bad and that I need to improve.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

Shmerl's position is not quite as extreme as some have been characterizing it. Basically, he does agree that we don't know the mental state of Feral decision makers, but claims something along the lines of
(1) Whatever their mental state is, it clearly does not involve making an effort to release DRM-free software, thus that mental state cannot be anti-DRM in the same sense as that of others who do make such an effort.
(2) Anyone who releases things with DRM and makes no obvious effort to release anything without DRM is in effect pro-DRM. Even if somewhere in their hearts, Feral decision makers do prefer DRM-free software, such private virtue is worthless if it has no functional result. So for Shmerl, Feral are pro-DRM in the sense that their deeds are the same as the deeds of a pro-DRM group would be; their mental state is almost irrelevant.
(3) Since they won't tell us their mental state, leaving nothing except their functional results as a guide, and their functional results are identical to those of a pro-DRM group, but not identical to those of an anti-DRM group, he thinks it reasonable to treat and describe them as if their mental state matched their actions.

Martin Luther King made roughly the same argument about US "liberals" who were not themselves pro-segregation but resisted the civil rights movement on the basis that it "rocked the boat" and so forth; he considered them almost more of a problem than the actual racists.

The arguments against describing Feral as "pro-DRM" are also compelling. They come down to
(A) We don't know their mental state, so it could be anti-DRM or at least not actively pro-DRM.
(B) There are known, and perhaps unknown, barriers to publishing with GOG, with GOG under Linux in specific, and to some extent to publishing ported games DRM-free at all. It is plausible that Feral may merely not be anti-DRM enough to outweigh these barriers.
(C) We like Feral because they port lots of good games to Linux so we want to give them the benefit of the doubt on moral issues. This is basically an emotional argument, but not less important for that; it can be restated in a more cynical political form--ignoring imperfections in one's allies for the sake of the major objective is an important element of "realpolitik" thinking.

These positions are to some extent talking past each other. Arguments (A) and (B) are arguments about Feral's internal state, which don't really speak to Shmerl's functionalist position--he doesn't care very much what their internal state is. And argument (C) is based on the idea that Linux advocacy is more important than DRM issues. Shmerl seems to have a different politics which considers DRM issues more important, or at least as important, as Linux advocacy. I myself consider the spread of open source operating systems (mainly Linux just now) the more important strategically, but if I did consider DRM (and the legal issues surrounding it) the more important then someone doing something else good wouldn't cut much ice with me if they're doing DRM bad. So again, that's not something people should be expecting will convince Shmerl.

As to arguments with Shmerl about whether DRM is important at all, or whether Steam's usually-pretty-transparent DRM is still a problem . . . Shmerl isn't stupid and he's clearly looked into this stuff a lot. There really are fairly important political and legal issues involved in DRM, and Shmerl clearly cares more about the principles than the details of one scheme versus another. People who don't know or care about the issues Shmerl has read up on are not going to convince him of anything. (I personally think DRM is a relatively minor symptom of much bigger issues around globalized capitalism, and it's not going to get better unless the global trade and "intellectual property" regime are changed in a big way. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about it.)

So you'll just have to agree to disagree. This expectation that all of you dogpiling on Shmerl and not really coming to grips with his position just naturally should have got him to shut up and see how wrong he is, is a delusion.

I completely agree with your analysis. Some value spreading Linux more important than DRM-free, other see DRM-free more important than bringing Linux to masses. All care for and love Linux.

That said I also want to add some of my frustration when engaging in a discussion with Shmerl. I'm fine with Steam's DRM and are perfectly fine with Shmerl avoiding it, though I interpret Shmerl reaction that Steam users do actively support DRM, thus they behave bad, thus they are bad. That feels kind-of not very good.

Anyway, @Shmerl, you have your skills to discuss (and apparently a lot of time too ;)), I think that you are OK and that the position you take is OK. I hope that I'm OK from your perspective too, even if I value Linux and the ability to play games on Steam more than a DRM-free world.

Have a good evening.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JahimselfI also prefer DRM free games in general. I think it is the best for consumers. It is quite similar to owning a DVD, or music CD, which you can carry anywhere, and copy for yourself to avoid damaging the CD. You can also lend it to someone. For me the GOG way is what suit the best what you do in reality with objects that you purchase.

Nontheless, for now Feral can not cover the cost of doing so. Even releassing a game on steam with all the advantages of it is not always worthy to cover the salary of their engineers. For instance they could not release F1 2016, probably because F2015 was not viable financially.

For them, choosing the game must be quite a bargain, because the game has to please the community as much as possible, but also to sell enough to pay the porter a wage.

Don't forget that they port a game with a team that is often 100 time smaller than the big editors. It is huge lot of work, and honestly the work is of incredible quality.

In France we have a saying which says: "Little by little, the bird makes its nest" and I think that is exactly what Feral Interactive is trying to do, and the best they can. So for now, indeed the situation is not perfect, we have to get our community growing in order for them to later be able to reach the DRM goal.

It's a personnal explanation, but I'm quite confident they are linux lovers as we all are here., and that they probably agree with what the majority of us think of DRM-free games.

Thank you for your well-worded posting and the reminder for us all here that employees and users alike that work with Linux usually love and care for Linux. Seems that this gets forgotten sometimes, especially in heated discussions like this one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Alm888

Quoting: jensb) To really just annoy all the folks that often hijack the news posting here on GOL when a new Feral game is announced/released :)

I would consider myself honored! Yet, I think Feral is far more practical with these matters and does not take personal feelings of its employees/directors into account when money is concerned.

That was meant as a joke.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm sorry for the people that would prefer GOG. I would have liked it too if their games would be available to a broader audience. That said I'm sure Feral did their numbers and this is what it is.

I could imagine that protecting their intellectual property is indeed a reason to not release on GOG, though I'm pretty sure that this is not the only one. Contracts with original publishers and mostly support costs come to my mind, I could also think of data collection, pushing updates, payment etc. Next to that we should not forget that they are primarily a Mac/OSX porting studio using Steam and Apple Store. Linux is more of a side business to them. I could imagine that they simply don't want to take the investment to establish an extra channel for the relatively few Linux purchases.

Me, having had a fantastic journey with Rise of the Tomb Raider and now looking forward to Life is Strange BTS.

PS: Actually I think Feral declines GOG because of
a) World domination comes with Valve
b) To really just annoy all the folks that often hijack the news posting here on GOL when a new Feral game is announced/released :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Alm888

Quoting: liamdaweI'll be blunt, you just don't understand any of the business side of it.

Occam's Razor, my friend, Occam's Razor. Between "they are tied up with contractual obligations with third parties" and "it is their own business decision" one should choose the later (only 1 actor instead of 2) until it is proved contradicting other aspects.

Quoting: GuestYour attitude is ruining the thread. Please stop.

Hmm? Not that long ago you were "amused" by all of this. Or was it classical "if you have no arguments against -- ridicule your interlocutor" approach?

But fine, if even a simple thought that someone might not jump on the hype train and instead speak poorly about heavenly saint Feral Interactive gives you pain, then I'll stop for now. Sure, we might see who is right soon enough.

May I suggest to add your (off-topic) opinion regarding Feral's business model in the thread you already linked to?
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/forum/topic/3262/page=1

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: jensThey need the GitHub community and the users to keep GitHub as the de-facto standard for professional source code hosting in the cloud.

Catch is, community doesn't need them really. With MS reputation, it would be hard to convince people to stay and even more so, new ones to join. I expect Github to lose its de-facto standard status in result of this. So it might be a good move for MS (from MS perspective) to lure people to Azure, but it's a ruinous move for Github itself and its community.

Sure, GitHub will take an initial hit by users leaving GitHub just due to the name "Microsoft". But how big that hit exactly is, is still to be seen. Don't forget that GitHub wasn't exactly a charity organization before. The community and free users were/are surely important to Github's business model, but at least equally important are GitHub's paying customers. As I stated, I expect that not that much will change to free users and open projects within foreseeable future.

View this comment - View article - View full comments