Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by volca View Post
    1. Steping over copyright is not a valid reaction.
    Will respectfully disagree. Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? This is what I preach here. Sometimes lawful actions just don't help.

    Originally posted by volca View Post
    2. The activision games all suck
    Perhaps they do suck, but still, if I have to choose for Linux, between sucky games and no games, obviously sucky ones are chosen here.

    Disclaimer: I assume they forced dev to not doing Linux port, not merely discouraged him. Especially if dev decided to make Linux port on his own.

    Comment


    • #17
      its not a news, but since long ago microsoft try to capture the eyes of the PC only to Windows. PC = Windows
      they always will do this statement.
      different OSs came and this story repeat. OS/2, Beos, Linux or whatever.
      But now i think they have a little headache... so many systems with linux are appearing.

      i think if i have a PC and a game is designed for PC and it didnt run with whatever system i have installed. the game sucks. it have to be on the front box "for Windows", "for beos" or anything...

      Comment


      • #18
        If Activision is feuding with Valve I guess it's no shock.. I'll just vote with my wallet and not buy it. I feel sorry for Pinkerton Road and Phoenix Online Studios though it's not their fault.
        Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
        Ben Franklin 1755

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by arstyl View Post
          Hey folks.

          My understanding is that Gabriel Knight will use Unity 3D, which is Linux compatible, and the studios did not request extra funds for the port. They were perfectly happy with providing the port for themselves.

          ...and Activision (publisher, promoter, distributer, customer support) probably told them they weren't interested in a Linux port. That is - they don't think that it is worth time/money/getting out of bed for. Heck I use Linux, and I think that it wouldn't actually make money: I am certain most Linux users will just boot Windows if they actually wanted the game.

          Until the Steam Machine exists, and has a couple of million users paying for stuff, the real world is not quite as idealistic as the suckers who stick their credit cards into Kickstarter.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dimko View Post
            Will respectfully disagree. Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? This is what I preach here. Sometimes lawful actions just don't help.



            Perhaps they do suck, but still, if I have to choose for Linux, between sucky games and no games, obviously sucky ones are chosen here.

            Disclaimer: I assume they forced dev to not doing Linux port, not merely discouraged him. Especially if dev decided to make Linux port on his own.
            The situation is pretty much the same with music. Major studios force the band to do compromises, etc. Still, this is not a valid reason to damage the band that made the music (I assume you only disagree with the producer, not the author).

            If anything, there should be a way to buy the game for even a different platform, but directly from the author. As there is probably no such way, too bad for the author, I just skip the deal altogether. There are loads of good games for linux already, and more will come soon.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by volca View Post
              If anything, there should be a way to buy the game for even a different platform, but directly from the author. As there is probably no such way, too bad for the author, I just skip the deal altogether. There are loads of good games for linux already, and more will come soon.
              They can not legally sell the game under their own terms. IP is Activision's, so they have to comply with whichever terms the license impose. If this means Activision has the say on which platforms get supported, they can't support Linux and that's it.

              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              Sure it is.
              No, it actually isn't. Not buying from them is a valid reaction. Going illegal is not. This said, I don't care about validity of reactions here, considering preventing a game from being supported on Linux just because is just as valid as anything else, even though they have the right to.

              Comment


              • #22
                Whatever.... it's not like Linux is gonna run short on games because of Activision's decision. Sure, Call of Duty is nice, but there are plenty of great games from other vendors and no one will have enough time to play even half of what's out there.

                But, as others said, I believe Activisions decision is a business decision, i.e. Activision didn't think the investment into a Linux port is worth it. If Steam Machines become popular Activision will definitely change their position.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                  ...and Activision (publisher, promoter, distributer, customer support) probably told them they weren't interested in a Linux port. That is - they don't think that it is worth time/money/getting out of bed for. Heck I use Linux, and I think that it wouldn't actually make money: I am certain most Linux users will just boot Windows if they actually wanted the game.

                  Until the Steam Machine exists, and has a couple of million users paying for stuff, the real world is not quite as idealistic as the suckers who stick their credit cards into Kickstarter.
                  Again, the company doesn't need to do any of those. If they state THEY, ACTIVISION won't support Linux versions, you only need to add such disclaimer to the Linux version. Preventing the game from being ported is another, different, thing.

                  EDIT: It's kind of like using an open source engine for a commercial game. The company might not oppose to it, but they have no obligation to fix bugs on that engine. id did this, for example.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                    The real world is not quite as idealistic as the suckers who stick their credit cards into Kickstarter.
                    You call me a sucker? yet every Kickstarter project I've backed/wanted backed has succeeded and announced Linux ports. So who's the real sucker? This is a dick move by Activision and it basically shows they have contempt for their customers. But no matter, if they want to not have my money then they can go without it. I refuse to buy any games without native ports now. Hell once Star Citizen is ported I won't need other games. I dropped $1000 into that kickstarter and we're upto $34 million now. Companies that don't know howto please the market can go wither and die.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                      Whatever.... it's not like Linux is gonna run short on games because of Activision's decision. Sure, Call of Duty is nice, but there are plenty of great games from other vendors and no one will have enough time to play even half of what's out there.

                      But, as others said, I believe Activisions decision is a business decision, i.e. Activision didn't think the investment into a Linux port is worth it. If Steam Machines become popular Activision will definitely change their position.
                      Again, in the quoted forum seems to be stated Activision doesn't fund the game, but is rather just licensing the IP, so it is not a matter of "we won't pay for that port", but rather a matter of "we are not paying you for any version, but we will not allow you to make that port play our IP".

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                        No, it actually isn't. Not buying from them is a valid reaction. Going illegal is not.
                        Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, it was "illegal" for people with a certain colour of skin to sit in the front of the bus. Was it not a "valid reaction" to break this law?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                          Whatever.... it's not like Linux is gonna run short on games because of Activision's decision. Sure, Call of Duty is nice
                          Yeah, right...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by dee. View Post
                            Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, it was "illegal" for people with a certain colour of skin to sit in the front of the bus. Was it not a "valid reaction" to break this law?
                            We are talking about different laws here. If we are to consider valid to break copyright because we don't agree the way they chose to use it, then we should also consider valid GPL infringements, as they might disagree with us in that use of copyright.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dimko View Post
                              Will respectfully disagree. Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? This is what I preach here. Sometimes lawful actions just don't help.
                              Please explain to me how pirating something that they are not willing to sell you in the first place makes any difference. They basically have already told you that they don't want your money.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Besides, whatever, I think they could as well come up with a loophole - sell windows version, give linux binaries for it for free. There. If activision prohibits to sell linux version, maybe this does not include a win32->linux "patch"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X