Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

[mrugiero]

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.

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.

[sarmad]

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.

[mrugiero]

...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.

[DMJC]

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.

[mrugiero]

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".

[dee.]

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?

[Hamish Wilson]

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...

[mrugiero]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[volca]

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"