Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

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

  • #31
    I did play all games

    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.
    That are worth playing. 60% if not more are 2d crap.(don't get me wrong, dungeon od dredmore is one of games i play all time). I want better games. Not having choice is NOT cool. I respect dev, but i don't respect publisher. And not making Linux port, preventing Linux port affects me directly. i don't dual boot for many years now.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      Lots of games aren't being ported to Linux. That normally means "a company is not paying for a port" not "company is happy to lose money by deliberately not porting".

      We were told that the people doing the porting weren't charging extra. So, your reasoning doesn't make sense. They wouldn't even need to get out of bed for it. If they made even $1 that's a profit for the platform since they didn't pay anything for the port.

      Comment


      • #33
        My message to Activison...

        Originally posted by phoronix View Post
        Phoronix: Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

        A game studio has shared publicly that Activison is preventing a new game from actively being made for "that platform", a.k.a. Linux...

        http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU0MTA
        Resistance is futile.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by lano1106 View Post
          too bad for them. I wont buy their game. I hope Activision does not have the delusion to think that they are publishing good games enough to motivate people to buy Windows.

          Won't happen to me for sure.
          I already have windows ( dual boot openSUSE and w7 ) but activision just made it to my black list.

          They can stick their games were the sun does not shine.

          Which means if they come with a game, I really want to play, I wont pay for it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
            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.
            Nope. Copyright is a misleading term because it's being used to mean a collection of quite different rights.

            I can disagree with the part of copyright that monopolizes the copying/sharing of a copyrighted work, while still agreeing with the part of copyright that provides the protection of authorship and allows to set terms for commercial distribution.

            I don't consider commercial distribution and noncommercial sharing between private individuals equal, just like I don't consider commercially publishing a book and sharing a book with your friend equal.

            Comment


            • #36
              It's funny because people care

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Nope. Copyright is a misleading term because it's being used to mean a collection of quite different rights.

                I can disagree with the part of copyright that monopolizes the copying/sharing of a copyrighted work, while still agreeing with the part of copyright that provides the protection of authorship and allows to set terms for commercial distribution.

                I don't consider commercial distribution and noncommercial sharing between private individuals equal, just like I don't consider commercially publishing a book and sharing a book with your friend equal.
                Copyright gives you the right to set the terms of distribution. Commercial or non-commercial. And the GPL takes them as equal, so stepping over it in this case makes valid stepping over the GPL. Also, they are setting terms for commercial distribution, no more than this. Their terms are "not for Linux". That's the same piece that protects authorship and allows to set terms for commercial distribution you said you could agree with.

                Comment


                • #38
                  If you support all IP laws

                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  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.
                  That I hope you don't use ffmpeg, libdvdcss, or other patent-resisting software on Linux inside the US either. I do, because I consider software patents to be illegitimate law written by government bought and paid for by corporations. Remember, the main reason the GPL was ever created as as self-defense against others taking our code, then CLOSING it. If there were no patents and no copyrights, anyone could compile our code and release only the binaries BUT nobody could keep us from releasing our own binaries with our source code. That would be "good enough" for my purposes. I say if you don't want your invention copied, keep it to yourself and forfeit all credit for having invented it, the way things were before patents were created as "royal patents" by kings as a subset of paid royal monopolies.

                  As for me, I consider the entire system of government AND of international trade to be an enemy organization or set therof, none of whose decrees mean anything except rules of engagement for enemy soldiers. Why do you think I use military-grade encryption and preach its use by others?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Activision games are trash, no real loss.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      what the problem?

                      Originally posted by peppercats View Post
                      Activision games are trash, no real loss.
                      no problem, they only do call of duty (all the same year after year) i really don t care about this, i buy metro last week to support

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Don't tell people to pirate

                        Originally posted by dimko View Post
                        Pirate their games, use them under wine.
                        FU Activision!
                        I payed for every Linux title I own or owned.
                        I will however lightheartedly pirate their games and play them in wine, providing they run there. I will use every dirty way to do them damage now.
                        Hackers, Black Hats, please take note who to f*** up next, same goes to Anonymous.
                        Fuc**** As* hats!
                        Piracy is never the answer. Piracy allows content owners claim that X amount of piracy equals X amount of lost sales, which isn't true. Piracy isn't stealing of content but stealing access to it. You may not be taking away from the amount of copies in existence but you are benefiting from the works of others without compensating them for it.

                        When Ubisoft releases Assassin's Creed 2 with its' insane drm I didn't buy it or play it in any form. Active disinterest or even passive disinterest speaks more than piracy.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Next time don't pick a shit publisher like Activision.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            What the **** is wrong here? These things still happen today?

                            Todays modern universe clearly speaks another language.

                            I have no clue what stone age activision just landed in, but it clearly must be something with stones.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In Poland, terms as "X product can only be runned on Y" in EULA's are invalid.

                              Sane law.

                              (Yes we can install OSX onto normal PC's if OSX was bought.)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Luke View Post
                                That I hope you don't use ffmpeg, libdvdcss, or other patent-resisting software on Linux inside the US either. I do, because I consider software patents to be illegitimate law written by government bought and paid for by corporations. Remember, the main reason the GPL was ever created as as self-defense against others taking our code, then CLOSING it. If there were no patents and no copyrights, anyone could compile our code and release only the binaries BUT nobody could keep us from releasing our own binaries with our source code. That would be "good enough" for my purposes. I say if you don't want your invention copied, keep it to yourself and forfeit all credit for having invented it, the way things were before patents were created as "royal patents" by kings as a subset of paid royal monopolies.

                                As for me, I consider the entire system of government AND of international trade to be an enemy organization or set therof, none of whose decrees mean anything except rules of engagement for enemy soldiers. Why do you think I use military-grade encryption and preach its use by others?
                                Software patents and copyright are different things. Also, I'm not defending Activision, I'm just talking about consistency here. You say it is valid, well, valididity is a matter of logic. If it is valid to some, it is valid to others. We talk about not respecting the conditions to distribute a copyrighted material, well, this is exactly the same if you do it for GPL software or for artistic material.
                                I'm not saying it could or could not be fair. I'd say Activision is giving the finger to Linux users, so I'd consider it fair if Linux users do the same pirating their games. But it wouldn't be valid, if they'd expect companies to respect the GPL when they use code with this license.
                                Anyway, your position in this post is consistent. You say for your ends you can distribute whatever code and binaries you want if there is no copyright, and you don't care about others being obligated to share the source code if they redistribute your binaries, so you don't care about copyright at all, and it's fine.

                                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                                Next time don't pick a shit publisher like Activision.
                                It isn't about them being the publishers, but about them being the IP owners.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X