Sounds great! Is it going to be sold on Humble Bundle or any other DRM free channels?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KristianThat would be treating their Linux users differently from their Windows and Mac OSX users. From everything that GOG is saying there is no way they would want to do that and why should they?

Edit:

Bumadar is exactly correct.

It's all relative. DosBox is pretty stable and available everywhere (I mean Linux distros). So there is little need to bundle it. They don't bundle DirectX with their Windows installers, don't they? Other components are less stable / have more differences across distros and it makes more sense to bundle them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I didn't mean one install fit all. They usually dedicate a package for each OS anyway. One install for Linux distros would work perfectly though. Simply put the game in one location, put a couple of dosbox conf files which point there and mount some iso image (that's common for CD based DosBox games), and create a .desktop file that does something like:

dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>

That's it. They can even display a message if DosBox is missing, saying something - Please install DosBox first.

That's basically what I do with DosBox games from GOG now anyway:

1. Extract the Windows installer with innoextract.
2. Place the files in one location, delete all the bundled stuff like Windows build of DosBox and whatever else not from the game itself.
3. Adjust shipped .conf files to use POSIX path syntax and selected location (GOG usually packages 2 conf files).
4. Create .desktop file with dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>

All that would work on any distro, I bet.

Rarely you might need adjusting some settings like from:
output=ddraw

to:
output=opengl

That's what GOG would do with dedicated conf files for each OS.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HamishI am not referring to specific code modifications to either of the emulators (if there were code modifications that were not released they would be in violation of the GPL) but specific tweaks to the emulators configurations and specific parameters that affect how they are launched, many of which can not be done globally for all games. These are necessary but not very flexible parts of many of their products.

By the way, they distribute the sources for ScummVM and DosBox with the games. So if there are any modifications, they are GPL compliant.

And specialized config files - that's normal. They can simply adjust those for each OS (since there is a difference between Windows and POSIX  path syntax for example), and it should be quite enough to run the game with distros' emulators.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'd wait until the next year. If they don't start supporting Linux by then, it would mean they aren't doing anything on that front. So far they have open positions for developers with knowledge of Linux, so there is a chance they are working on it:

https://secure.gog.com/work#senior_software_engineer_desktop

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kristian" The point of limited activations is by far not the worst point in DRM."

For me this is exactly the worst thing. I will not buy a game that has limited activations,  constant online DRM or intermittent online DRM(online authentication every 24 hours or the like) or similar. That is where I draw the line. I don't care about the more or less paranoid privacy aspects. That is not to say I don't care about privacy, I certainly do. But I don't see the issue with authenticating a game online once, when it is installed. Where is the privacy concern in that? it is meant as (IMHO ineffective, meaningless) anti piracy measure. That is it. I would want to so some really good evidence in order to believe that Valve are abusing it to gain access to sensitive information.

It's surely a bad thing. I won't buy any games with limited activations either, but this is a comfort issue. Privacy and security issues go way beyond comfort matters, that's why I said the previous issue isn't the worst. But in the end for me it doesn't matter. I wouldn't buy a game with any level of DRM :)

Privacy/security concern is inherent in the concept of DRM itself if you think about it. DRM by default is preemptive policing approach (which I consider simply unethical to begin with). I.e. it treats all users as potential criminals (infringers), that's the whole point of DRM. I.e. users are denied trust from those who utilize DRM. Why would you trust them in return when they don't trust you? DRM code is a black box doing whatever because they don't trust you. Now, why would you assume it repsects your privacy and is secure for your system? Since trust is always mutual, I'd say it's proper to always treat it as a potential threat. And it's not like there were no cases of real DRM abuse in the past.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So in the end, you can have some games that are actually fully DRM free, but not comfortably packaged for you to back up. Others come with various levels of DRM nastiness and without a clear indication of its presence (in some cases it's indicated as 3rd party, and in others it's not since it's Steamworks DRM). The point of limited activations is by far not the worst point in DRM. Privacy and security concerns are much more important. And, I assume you can't filter the catalog based on DRM free criteria?

Quoting: KristianI should also add that Steam has a backup feature that allows backups to optical media and external HDD's and the like. So you can use that as your installation media in the future(though you still need the online authentication at the end).

This is useless, since one of the key problems with DRM is, that when the service is being closed, DRMed content which depends on the service becomes a pile of useless garbage. So such kind of backups which require you to log in to Steam to install them are not good.

All in all, that's not good enough for me. Buy using a service you actually support / endorse it. I prefer to support those who have a clear DRM free position.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: owenLinux users should pull their butt plug out and be grateful that valve is porting games to linux and with steam for linux there can be AAA titles on linux. BTW I am a linux user and glad that valve has the ball to do it.

I'm not grateful for them proliferating any DRM on Linux. I'm grateful that they increase interest in Linux as a platform for developers. Credit should go where it's due. And criticism where it is due as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SilviuI've got  Deus Ex on Steam. The only time I needed Steam to download it was on initial download. It does not need Steam to actually run. Back it up and that's it. No need to ever install Steam again. Keep the archive safe. Just because you have to sign on for a service does not mean it's DRM.

It's like complaining that you have to log on GOG's site to be able to download games.

Well, if you can simply archive the game directory and use it as a backup for further installs, then it's not as bad. But is it true for all Steam games? And if so, why don't they offer to download an archive? Another big downside there is that they don't inform you what kind of DRM (if any) is involved. Desura for example do it (even though most of their games are DRM free).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: owenFuck GOG and their shitty stuff. Who the fuck want them. Steam support linux and almost any games you find on GOG is already on steam.

Anyone who doesn't accept DRM. As simple as that. And it's a lot of Linux users for your reference. I'm simply not going to use Steam while they have any bit of DRM involved.

View this comment - View article - View full comments