Tell Blizzard You Want Linux Support In Their Games

Don't get your hopes up, I bet we will see a Call of Duty on Linux and a Linux version of Origin long before Blizzard makes any moves toward Linux.

Signed. Not because I'm a fan of their games but because the big companies should be pushing open source platforms. No paying M$ fees to release on their OS must surely be attractive?

I might buy blizzard products again as soon as they have native linux clients.

Up to 15 pages now, and I just got a couple of friends to sign

I've always wondered why it's so hard for Blizzard to make Linux ports when they openly support Linux but then the company side of things decides it's not worth it. even when their COO said we would see a native Linux version of an "up coming game" back in April of last year but yet I've still not seen it. which I had assumed it was Hearthstone. But yet nothing is even hinted about. I've played WoW for about the first 4 years it came out but then got bored and moved on. I do own Diablo and it's expansion which I played when i used to dual boot windows. But only play Hearthstone because I'm able to run it well enough in wine. Honestly hearthstone will be all i play of Blizzard games until they decide to make native ports. because as it stands everything else I like to play is available on Linux now, and more and more are being ported to Linux every week. Why Blizzard "the company" has to come across as a greedy piece of dung is beyond me. Maybe it has something to do with Activision? who knows...

Quoting: GuestCould you explain exactly why it is a problem? Because I really don't see the point of the DRM argument.
I'm a gamer, and the way I see it, if some dev makes a game and I like it, I will buy it and play it, like I have been doing with WoW for the past 9 or 10 years.
As long as I am happy with what I am paying for, why should it matter about the DRM?

The problem with DRM is: It won't stay only in the entertainment-sector. And even today it is possible to get a concrete profile from you and your interests using such platforms. This is a great value for the companies and at first you think it can help. Yes they give concrete tipps based on your interests. But your interests might also change when time comes. And what is better? Having a platform thinking for you or better think by yourself? You presented the obligatory argument: "As long as I am happy and paying." But you have no rights on the software or better on its usage, even not on the license you've bought. You can't decide when installing or updating, besides the fact you could perhabs adjust some settings within the concurrent client-software. But this software is also changing and so the conclusion is simple: It's all about controlling the customer interest. When you decide this on your own, there would be no problem at all. But using this kind of software also decides for everyone else because the main interest of the companies is to tell you what to think and to buy and they have a good toolset for this today, which is going to be extended tomorrow. So it would be no step in the right direction. Yes it could bring some more games on Linux. But from my point of view it is better to abstain instead loosing freedom, the freedom to decide WHEN to install, WHAT to update and HOW to use software and WHAT to show from data and WHAT explicitly not. If Facebook changes something in their privacy EULA and within their interface making some information public which was private before it is everytime the same: The people are running around and searching ways to reset these options instead of using some free, open alternatives caring about data protection. And with the usage of more systems alike "Battle.Net", "UPLAY", "ORIGIN" or "STEAM" it will not get better, even more complicated the same way!

At last: Why should I care when Blizzard is going to port their actual games to Linux? I will not use this kind of crap and I would argument everytime against this way. Yes it would help Linux with actual driver development and support, but the price is far too high.

But you do know that "DRM" is "Digital Rights Management" and is a nother word for "Copy Protection" ? Ive never seen anyone making profiles with e.g. SecuROM. The only problem you should have with DRM is that it violates the Open Source / GNU principles, thats it. But thats the struggle you have with trying to run a subscription based game service.

Battle.net is basicly the same as Steam and i havent see you rant below Steam-Related posts at all.

@Karti: Do you think I repeat myself everytime again on every article posted with STEAM-tag? Therefore I would have to comment many articles here. This is and was some detailed comment because of the question above. Yes: There are more short comments from my side about criticism of such platforms. But this is only my opinion and therefore I have no right to dictate the view of others. So I'm bringing only some kind of arguments why I think this is not the right way for individual and free gaming on linux. At last all we are getting is a UNIX-copy from "Windows"? Not the best choice getting all services running on Linux.

I certainly have to agree with @through, I don't like the vendor specific DRM either. I'm pretty okay with Steam though, which I mainly consider a redistribution platform.

But we will have to agree to disaggree on that I think that having more games is always a benefit, even if it comes with a lock-in like Battle.NET or what ever it's called, since the people get their games on Linux and can play their favourite game.

Sill I agree that vendor specific DRM shouldn't exist at all, I think that "free gaming" on linux is okay, but the content creators are running a business and want our cash (it boils down to that, ain't it). I can live with being something-like-drm controled by Steam, even though, GoG is a cool option if available. They're doing million investments for our entertainment, and I can see the reason they want a distribution platform like Steam to take care of selling their copies and to a certain amount DRM as well (I still think that Steam is the "best" DRM you could get at the moment).

Quoting: KartiThe only problem you should have with DRM is that it violates the Open Source / GNU principles, thats it. But thats the struggle you have with trying to run a subscription based game service.

It's totally fair to not like or want to support account based DRM. In some ways they're worse than other DRM mechanisms because it gives DRM providers/users the ability to target individuals for data mining and disciplinary action (whether that's warranted or not). In the case of the latter, it also means that any additional titles you own are at risk based on your behaviour in another game. I don't condone anything that might get a player's account closed, but it still seems inappropriate.

Battle.net is required for Blizzard's non-subscription based games (unlike Steam, Blizzard offers licences for titles rather than subscriptions - a subtle difference given that licences end up tied to accounts and that account access can be revoked, but a difference nonetheless), and that's legitimately offputting for some people.

Personally, I don't have large enough objections to Blizzard having account based DRM for me to want to avoid using Battle.net (I respect anybody who does, though). I've had an account for years and still play SC2 in Wine from time to time. That said, I won't be signing petitions or encouraging Blizzard to support Linux until they change their stances on offline modes for their games that offer single player gameplay.