Quoting: MohandevirBecause this is your personnal situation that is absolutely not viable for the mass market. Without official support, Linux gaming will stay a sub 1% marketshare platform and this is what we have to get out of.

Let's say you can play some game without any extra middleman or entity involved, how is that not viable for you as a Linux gamer?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirAs long as there is an entity in charge of maintaining the build, just like Feral does, personnally, I'm fine with that.

Why do you need some entity to tell you "it's playable" if it's already playable without any entity?-) But in essence what's good is attention of developers to Linux market in general, that's about it. Other than that, you don't need any entities like Feral if you already can play the game. Especially if they would limit you in some way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Whitewolfe80also a little worrying that devs are seeing this progress and just saying yup we dont even need to port it we can release a wine wrapper

Let them do it, it's better than ignoring Linux for them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You can get a cheap external optical drive with USB connector for that purpose :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraI can say that it's quite possible that Feral is obligated to release only on their own store+Steam with DRM

Why would 2K want Steam exclusivity with DRM for one version (Linux / macOS) and not for another (Windows)?

Quoting: F.Ultrait's also possible that their license covers the version released and this new non-DRM release on GOG is a new version that Feral does not have license to.

This is most likely the case, contracts are usually narrowly worded. But it's not a blocker, Feral can just make an additional contract or update the current one if the original publisher (2K) is OK with the idea to begin with.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoBut that's not going to happen, probably not in any of our lifetimes. DRM isn't going anywhere, either. I can't make enough money, code or wealthy family connections to significantly affect any of the important decisions being made about these things.

One person alone might not affect it, but effect is a sum of its parts. Summed effort changes things. So for instance distributor which requires DRM-free has more leverage on publishers, than an a single individual. That's why for example buying from DRM-free distributors and avoiding DRMed ones has a meaningful impact on this. The bigger such distributors get, the harder is for DRM obsessed publishers to ignore the simple fact that they are losing money by not selling in such stores. So don't underestimate each individual impact, they matter when they are combined.

GOG gave a few interviews about their successful efforts to convince previously DRM inclined publishers to release DRM-free using normal business arguments. They have a dedicated team just for that purpose.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeMore on topic, it is not illegal to reverse engineer things. People do it all the time, like openmw, etc.

"Clean room" reverse engineering is legal. Copying copyrighted code is not. So if they reconstructed the original engine from scratch - it's fine, but if they had code dumps from the original Blizzard code - then it's a problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I agree with positive approach idea. So you propose to avoid answering any questions like "why is this or that bad"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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?

That would be a negative thing, but how do you see it as movable exactly? I.e. let's say you are arguing with proponents of overreaching policing, that it violates people's rights. They'll tell you that policing is more important than freedom, which logically leads for them to some kind of dictatorial approach. Agreeing to that or endorsing it is a slippery slope.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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

Well, how do you see separating the two (i.e DRM as bad, and then financially supporting such practice)?

It's like people using Facebook. It doesn't make people who use it bad, but it contributes to the erosion of privacy for instance, which is bad.

View this comment - View article - View full comments