Darksiders Has Been Ported To Linux

[kpedersen]

I strongly doubt publishers will realize that their two drm free *steam* games are sold 2% more often because they did not use any drm.

Heh, well I doubt that I count for 2%
This is the issue. Everyone needs to do this or it will make no difference.

Wait, do you tell us that you have released your software on Steam? Would be nice if you tell us the name of that software, so that people with the opinion "Steam=DRM" can pirate your software to protest against your decision.

Sigh, as I have stated in one of my many posts before. We realized that it is up to the developer to enable the DRM CEG component when releasing on Steam. And no, ours (like Darksiders apparently) does not have DRM.

Only a few months ago (when some of our software was published) did I realize that Valve do not at all impose DRM on any games published on Steam. This is (and always was) up to the developers (if they self publish).

Did we get pirated? Of course. Every Steam game (including ones with DRM) is up on torrents. However at least we did not get pirated by political protesters such as myself

@IneQuation:
Nice one. If it really is DRM free, then this is a great example of how using Steam does not necessarily mean enforced DRM. Greedy, arrogant and ignorant publishers (and often developers) is what enforces DRM.

Like I said earlier. The Linux community is small enough that developers and publishers do frequent forums like this. So these convos can make a difference.

Anyway the rest of this DRM convo is going around in circles. Back to the original topic.

[dee.]

Are you actually aware of the fact that games without DRM get pirated too? It is one thing to be against DRM, and a completely another to support and promote piracy.

And your attempts to display piracy as some noble endeavor against the big evil publishers, just make you look like the single most naive software pirate out there.

PS:
And regarding your gamedev story. I say it's bs. Go ahead and prove me wrong please.

I wouldn't call piracy "noble" or anything, but it is necessary. It's the only counterbalance we have against copyright maximalists. We get idiot publishers (in all media) who do not understand the real ramifications of a global market... we get stupid shit like DRM, we get moronic schemes like regional sales and pricing... and worst of all, we get legislators that are completely under the foot of copyright holders and then we get draconian copyright laws that suppress civil rights...

Piracy provides a balance against this development. Publishers could do whatever they want if it weren't for piracy, they could be doing even more horrible things and getting away with them, if piracy didn't exist. Now at least a publisher that releases a product riddled with DRM, restricted to a certain geographical region, has to consider that people are going to be able to pirate it... and maybe they will reconsider if it's cost-effective to do all these user-hostile things.

Humble Bundle had the right idea: accept that piracy will happen regardless, and offer games without DRM. Eventually, we're going to have to move to business models that don't depend on restrictions and draconian legislations, and piracy is the one thing that speeds this development up.

[Vim_User]

Sigh, as I have stated in one of my many posts before. We realized that it is up to the developer to enable the DRM CEG component when releasing on Steam. And no, ours (like Darksiders apparently) does not have DRM.

Is this intentionally or are you having problems with reading? As I have said (and you just need to look at this thread to see it), there are people that equate the Steam client with a form of DRM, regardless if additional DRM is enabled or not. You recommend to this people to pirate your software as a form of protest against DRM.
In short: You are that short sighted that you shoot yourself in the foot without even noticing it.

Piracy provides a balance against this development. Publishers could do whatever they want if it weren't for piracy, they could be doing even more horrible things and getting away with them, if piracy didn't exist.

Last I checked no publisher stood behind me with a gun when looking at a games store, urging me to buy their DRMed games. A publisher will have exactly the same amount of loss through DRM, regardless if you pirate a game or just don't buy it.
You can not claim higher moral ground if you exchange legitimate protest (for example with letting the publishers know that you won't buy DRMed games, creating petitions to make publishers and people aware of the problem, ...) with illegal actions, read: piracy.
You are taking yourself away from the category "protester" and are putting yourself in the category "criminal that has to be fought with even more DRM".

Not to say that many anti-DRM people are open source (often even GPL) zealots that would explode in anger if they become aware of license violations that affects open source software, but have no problem with piracy. I call hypocrisy in its purest form.

DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS: Not all Linux users are like these idiots and support piracy. Please continue to port your games to Linux, so that we can buy your games if we like them and support that effort.

[justmy2cents]

How about I'm the porter?

I suspected that on your nickname since i saw it in Twitter posts, but opted to thread carefully. well, you sir... have my gratitude for bringing my favorite slasher, thanks

[Tuxee]

I wouldn't call piracy "noble" or anything, but it is necessary. It's the only counterbalance we have against copyright maximalists. We get idiot publishers (in all media) who do not understand the real ramifications of a global market... we get stupid shit like DRM, we get moronic schemes like regional sales and pricing... and worst of all, we get legislators that are completely under the foot of copyright holders and then we get draconian copyright laws that suppress civil rights...

What are you babbling about? We talk about DRM protected games, right? If you can't live with it - JUST DON'T BUY IT. I can't really think of how a copy protected game infringes my civil rights. There are serious things going on threatening one's civil rights, but DRM protected games are definitely not among them.

You are just a freeloader as kpedersen trying to justify your pirating with equally worthless arguments.

[Hamish Wilson]

How about I'm the porter?

Then I will give you my thanks for working in the industry, even though I will not be playing your game if the Linux version is not released outside of Steam.

[dee.]

Last I checked no publisher stood behind me with a gun when looking at a games store, urging me to buy their DRMed games. A publisher will have exactly the same amount of loss through DRM, regardless if you pirate a game or just don't buy it.

And? That has exactly nothing to do with anything. Here's the very same reasoning: Microsoft is entirely free to do what they want with their OS - blackmail OEMs, use EEE-tactics against competition, bribe, lobby and corrupt politics/legislation in order to gain competitive advantage, manipulate standards for their own gain (UEFI/SecureBoot), collaborate with NSA to erode our privacy... but hey, as long as they're not literally forcing you to buy Windows, it's all good right? As long as they're not literally threatening you with violence if you don't use their products, they're absolved of all responsibility, right?

You can not claim higher moral ground if you exchange legitimate protest (for example with letting the publishers know that you won't buy DRMed games, creating petitions to make publishers and people aware of the problem, ...) with illegal actions, read: piracy.

Ok, so "illegal actions" are never "legitimate protest". There have never been any legitimate protestors or activists who have been condemned as criminals because the establishment found them inconvenient. Right?

You are taking yourself away from the category "protester" and are putting yourself in the category "criminal that has to be fought with even more DRM".

Well thanks a lot for your assumptions, but I've never once said anywhere that I pirate anything. So you can shove your accusations and characterizations right back up your asshole.

It's also nice that you're able to define for all of us what is "legitimate protest" and what isn't. So I'm guessing that laws are always perfect and just in your worldview? Anyone who breaks laws must, by definition, be immoral? You'd better go tell that to the human rights activists sitting in chinese jails, because I'm pretty sure they didn't get the memo...

Not to say that many anti-DRM people are open source (often even GPL) zealots that would explode in anger if they become aware of license violations that affects open source software, but have no problem with piracy. I call hypocrisy in its purest form.

No hypocrisy. I'm entirely ok with people freely sharing and copying GPL-licensed software, as well.

DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS: Not all Linux users are like these idiots and support piracy. Please continue to port your games to Linux, so that we can buy your games if we like them and support that effort.

DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS: not all Linux users are mouthbreathing morons who swallow the jizz of the establishment in hopes that they can become a bitch to the copyright industry. Some of us actually think about these issues and don't just swallow whole whatever the RIAA/MPAA/Disney/WB/etc feeds us.

Your entire post was a full-on knee-jerk reaction to the word "piracy". It's apparently becoming one of these "brain-off-switch-words" like "terrorism". You support piracy? PIRACY=BAD! No discussion, no arguments, PIRACY=BAD because they told us to think so on the 9 o'clock news...

If you had come in to the discussion in good faith, and actually discussed this civilly, I might have given you the benefit of the doubt... but, as you Vim_User often seem to do, you just barge in with that asshole attitude where everyone else's point of view is always wrong by definition, filled to brim with ad-hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments, there's pretty much no chance of any real discourse happening about the actual causes and effects of piracy...

[Vim_User]

And? That has exactly nothing to do with anything. Here's the very same reasoning: Microsoft is entirely free to do what they want with their OS - blackmail OEMs, use EEE-tactics against competition, bribe, lobby and corrupt politics/legislation in order to gain competitive advantage, manipulate standards for their own gain (UEFI/SecureBoot), collaborate with NSA to erode our privacy... but hey, as long as they're not literally forcing you to buy Windows, it's all good right? As long as they're not literally threatening you with violence if you don't use their products, they're absolved of all responsibility, right?

So watering the soup with going down the general path? OK, if you want so. Microsoft can only be hit with one action: Don't give them their money, don't use their products. Pirating Windows and then use it for whatever, even if you only use GPL software, is actually showing support to Microsoft by making their platform more interesting to developers, exactly what you did not want to achieve. The same happens when a game is known to be pirated often: The publishers see that the concept works, they just need better DRM.

Ok, so "illegal actions" are never "legitimate protest". There have never been any legitimate protestors or activists who have been condemned as criminals because the establishment found them inconvenient. Right?

Legitimate protest can be done by illegal actions, but that does not mean that that applies in any case at all times. Boycotting DRM by giving publishers reasons to implement even more DRM (without piracy there would be no need for DRM at all) is not only short sighted, but outright moronic.

Well thanks a lot for your assumptions, but I've never once said anywhere that I pirate anything. So you can shove your accusations and characterizations right back up your asshole.

Sorry, but your constant use of the word we

I wouldn't call piracy "noble" or anything, but it is necessary. It's the only counterbalance we have against copyright maximalists. We get idiot publishers (in all media) who do not understand the real ramifications of a global market... we get stupid shit like DRM, we get moronic schemes like regional sales and pricing... and worst of all, we get legislators that are completely under the foot of copyright holders and then we get draconian copyright laws that suppress civil rights...

and your statement that you deem piracy as necessary indicated that you are in fact a pirate. Otherwise you just have said that you know what is necessary and how to handle the situation, but won't participate in what you yourself deem necessary. Not much better.

It's also nice that you're able to define for all of us what is "legitimate protest" and what isn't. So I'm guessing that laws are always perfect and just in your worldview? Anyone who breaks laws must, by definition, be immoral? You'd better go tell that to the human rights activists sitting in chinese jails, because I'm pretty sure they didn't get the memo...

Ah, again watering the soup by going general. Of course I will use my definitions of what I deem legitimate and what not when it comes to morality, nothing else would make sense andeverything else would be totally illogical.

No hypocrisy. I'm entirely ok with people freely sharing and copying GPL-licensed software, as well.

Poor reading comprehension or intentionally not geeting the point? My statement was clearly aimed at license violations. What you say is: license violation is OK, as long as you deem the license to be compatible with your worldview, no matter that it is totally the developers/publishers right to decide for themselves which licenses (however restrictive) they use.
In short: double standard and purest hypocrisy and you just admitted it.

DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS: not all Linux users are mouthbreathing morons who swallow the jizz of the establishment in hopes that they can become a bitch to the copyright industry. Some of us actually think about these issues and don't just swallow whole whatever the RIAA/MPAA/Disney/WB/etc feeds us.

Your entire post was a full-on knee-jerk reaction to the word "piracy". It's apparently becoming one of these "brain-off-switch-words" like "terrorism". You support piracy? PIRACY=BAD! No discussion, no arguments, PIRACY=BAD because they told us to think so on the 9 o'clock news...

If you had come in to the discussion in good faith, and actually discussed this civilly, I might have given you the benefit of the doubt... but, as you Vim_User often seem to do, you just barge in with that asshole attitude where everyone else's point of view is always wrong by definition, filled to brim with ad-hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments, there's pretty much no chance of any real discourse happening about the actual causes and effects of piracy...

Piracy, also known as copyright infringement: Willfully breaking the license (when it comes to proprietary software often paired with removing DRM/copy protection) to remove all restrictions from the software. So breaking the GPL and incorporating code released under the GPL in proprietary projects without giving access to the code is also piracy.

If you don't see the double standard and hypocrisy here all ad hominems towards you are well earned.

[Cyber Killer]

Piracy is no solution. The solution is not buying and not pirating, not playing at a friends house, etc. that which you protest against + buying that which does conform to your ideals. That sends the proper message. What…? You want to play that exact one game? Well, nobody said it would be easy to not give in to the marketing hype :-P. There are millions of other games (or at least many thousand for GNU/Linux), they might be of the same genre, or not, but at least some of them are at least as fun as that "one". Go buy/play one of them.

As for playing a game in 20 years… This most probably will be impossible regardless of copy protection. Few years ago I wanted to play an old GNU/Linux game that I found on Sourceforge. It was written in Qt2, the source code was provided. Guess what - it wouldn't run cause those libs are no longer in the distros, so I tried compiling... To compile that game one needed to compile the libs, which depended on other libs, which were not available any more, etc… You see where this is going - old and not maintained software is hard to run after a while no matter what ;-). (Running an old distro version in a VM doesn't always work either.) BTW: this made me realize back then that we have a problem with backwards compatibility on GNU/Linux, we can't rely on maintainers to keep the software updated until the end of days. This is something we need to start caring about, especially now, that we start getting many 3rd party software like games (yes, most of them ship with needed libs, but not all of them, e.g. almost nobody bundles libstdc and many that do find that it causes problems). (note: the official GNU/Linux port of Unreal Tournament 2004, that was on the game discs, no longer installs/runs despite being not that old :-( )

[dee.]

So watering the soup with going down the general path? OK, if you want so. Microsoft can only be hit with one action: Don't give them their money, don't use their products. Pirating Windows and then use it for whatever, even if you only use GPL software, is actually showing support to Microsoft

Pirating windows doesn't give money to Microsoft.

by making their platform more interesting to developers, exactly what you did not want to achieve.

By the same logic, the same thing happens if you use windows software via wine. In the real world though, sometimes people need to run a program that is only available for windows, maybe because of their jobs or whatever.

The same happens when a game is known to be pirated often: The publishers see that the concept works, they just need better DRM.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or is this another thing you just pulled out of your ass?

Smart publishers by now are starting to see that no DRM works, "better" or not. There's always a way to break DRM... piracy is not the real issue even. The effect on the publisher is exactly the same whether you just don't buy the game or pirate it or even if you just play with your friend's copy.

Legitimate protest can be done by illegal actions, but that does not mean that that applies in any case at all times. Boycotting DRM by giving publishers reasons to implement even more DRM (without piracy there would be no need for DRM at all) is not only short sighted, but outright moronic.

Reasons? Oh please. These days DRM has more to do with planned obsolescence than piracy. Why let customers buy a game that they can play for as long as they like, when you can force them to buy new games/subscriptions constantly...

Sorry, but your constant use of the word weand your statement that you deem piracy as necessary indicated that you are in fact a pirate.

So... if I consider the police to be necessary, that means I'm a policeman? GREAT LOGIC, GENIUS.

You're either confusing inference with implication, or you're - again - just being too stubborn to admit that you're wrong about anything...

Otherwise you just have said that you know what is necessary and how to handle the situation, but won't participate in what you yourself deem necessary. Not much better.

Now you're just being stupid on purpose.

Poor reading comprehension or intentionally not geeting the point? My statement was clearly aimed at license violations.

I know what your statement was "aimed at". It's bullshit, your argument hinges on the assumption that all license violations are equal.

Licenses are not equal, neither are license violations. A license is nothing but a contract, and contracts are limited to what they can obligate you to. For instance, even if you sign a contract where you agree to be someone's slave for the rest of your life, that doesn't mean you actually have to do it because such a contract is not valid, a person's personal freedom cannot be taken away by a contract. A contract cannot obligate you to harm yourself. The things a contract (or license) are allowed to obligate you to are defined by law, and those laws can also be changed and modified, like all laws.

One can see GPL and other such licenses as being valid, while seeing the terms of an EULA that forbid breaking the DRM or sharing the binary with your friends as invalid. You might disagree with that point of view but it's not hypocrisy... I'm not commenting on the validity of such a view, but the view is not inconsistent with itself so it is by definition not hypocrisy.

What you say is:

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're bad at it.

license violation is OK, as long as you deem the license to be compatible with your worldview, no matter that it is totally the developers/publishers right to decide for themselves which licenses (however restrictive) they use.

The only problem is that no such right exists. There's a whole bunch of things that a license or contract cannot restrict.

Piracy, also known as copyright infringement: Willfully breaking the license (when it comes to proprietary software often paired with removing DRM/copy protection) to remove all restrictions from the software. So breaking the GPL and incorporating code released under the GPL in proprietary projects without giving access to the code is also piracy.

Vim_user: someone who thinks you can win debates by redefining words.