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...

Could 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).

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.

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.

Thanks for the heads up all - I was glad to post my story on the petition thread. Using SC2 Galaxy Editor in WINE is a chore, I really need official support as a Content Creator.

My thead post:

+5 for Linux.

I am a content creator for StarCraft 2. I create RISK Action Editon which is in the top 60 daily.

We have 3 content creators in the family and all use either Arch Linux or ElementaryOS which is Ubuntu. 0 Mac, 0 Windows.

It's really this simple: support Linux or die. There are too many other good games competing for me as a player on my SteamOS/Arch Linux - some friends have 600 Linux games in the library. I would love to play StarCraft 2 in my Living room on my SteamOS PC.

According to Steam there are 750,000 active Linux users who game every month, we are also the most technically developed users and technically skilled game developers on the planet, join Linux and gain us or ignore us and your competitors will take your place as you cease to exist.

Question: I know OSX is based on an Unix core... and I saw X11 installed on my Mac... How different is OSX from linux? More to the point, would it be difficult to port the OSX versions of the games to Linux?

As it has already been said, today Blizzard are a shadow of their former self. Their creative force simply slipped away long ago. Enough talk, back to Torchlight 2.

Question: I know OSX is based on an Unix core... and I saw X11 installed on my Mac... How different is OSX from linux? More to the point, would it be difficult to port the OSX versions of the games to Linux?

Depends on the game and which libraries/game engine aso it uses. If it has proprietary dependancy which has no linux support then this can really a road blocker :/. But if everthing fine and is available for Linux then it isn't a big deal. Still a bit of effort, but a huge difference to porting the game from Windows to Linux.

Aspyr mentionend once that if they have ported a game to OSX, then it is only a small step to port the game to Linux: 90% is done with OSX port already, so they have only to port the remaining 10%.

Here's what I put (just in case anyone cares :-) ):

"I solely play on linux now. It's a shame because I got some way through Diablo 3 before it stopped working on wine - it's probably fixed now, but I no longer have the inclination to spend what little leisure time I get post-children tweeking settings and trying to get compromises working. I would very much appreciate it if you put some dev time into getting linux ports working. That way I would finish D3 and buy the DLC. I'd also be likely to buy Starcraft 2 if it had a linux port."

Question: I know OSX is based on an Unix core... and I saw X11 installed on my Mac... How different is OSX from linux? More to the point, would it be difficult to port the OSX versions of the games to Linux?

Graphics whise, WoW on MacOSX uses OpenGL to my knowledge. The transition for the graphics engine shouldn't be too hard (except for porting the build to Linux, which often is one of the harder things to do).

A huge difference is the sound output in Linux, the keyboard/mouse input, the screen handling (resolutions, fullscreen/windowed, multiple monitors etc), networking code (a bit different in BSD/MacOSX). This can be solved today pretty easily since SDL2.0 was released, but would be certainly some porting effort.

As an outsider it's hard to tell how much effort this would require. Since it's known from sources who were at Blizzard that they did run their games on Linux already (at least WoW, they called it "internal testing only", though, we don't know how far this port went), I'd guess they could support it pretty easily but may not want to due to other reasons (another platform to officially support, investment costs and benefits out of it cash-whise - to put it simple, they doubt they'd benefit from this at the current stage).

We may not forget: They'd be in the need to port tools to (Battle.NET, Downloader, Anti-Cheat and what the heck else they do have we don't know yet).

Why should I support a company to distribute their own proprietary DRM-platform with name "Battle.Net" on Linux?

Could 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?

DRM usually interferes with the gaming experience. In more extreme circumstances, DRM can disable a game once the publisher is no longer interested in selling it anymore. This can also happen due to simple technical glitches.

It serves no value to the user and tends to sabotage the system in some way.

I do remember at some point Blizzard had said while they didn't officially support it, they did have some people testing WoW on Wine to make sure their patches didn't horribly break compatibility there, and that they weren't going to inadvertently flag Wine users as cheating/hacking.

With it 'mostly' working there, I don't see them wanting to spend the effort in a port, sadly. They'll just tell us to go use Wine like we have done for years.

Their loss, though - there's so many other awesome native Linux games on Steam and elsewhere that I don't miss it!

Hi everyone, just an update on the Battle.net forum and petition, the forum is now over 20 pages (400+ posts) and the petition just surpassed 2,600 signatures.

it's a good way for them to analyse their current linux user demographic.