Feral Interactive have no plans to put their Linux ports on GOG

Quoting: ImantsDoes DRM really prevents games from pirating? Or it just helps them not to be pirated after 5 hours or so but little bit longer?

It depends on the DRM. Some of it is a lot harder to crack than others, and sometimes developers put not so obvious "gotchas" in the code -- like making guns in an FPS do a quarter of the damage they're supposed to so that the game becomes impossibly difficult -- but no DRM is perfect. Most publishers only really care about hindering pirates for the first week or so since that's usually when a hot game will put up its best sales numbers, and people will be more likely to buy if they can't simply download for free.

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is where I fall on this debate: If people are worried about game preservation then the warez community already has us covered.

So your suggestion to preserve it is to use pirated versions? Isn't it itself an admission how messed up DRM is?

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is where I fall on this debate: If people are worried about game preservation then the warez community already has us covered.

So your suggestion to preserve it is to use pirated versions? Isn't it itself an admission how messed up DRM is?

This is not the first time in this thread that you have misunderstood or misrepresented someone's point. You either need to work on your reading comprehension, or be more honest with the way you frame other people's opinions.

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is not the first time in this thread that you have misunderstood or misrepresented someone's point. You either need to work on your reading comprehension, or be more honest with the way you frame other people's opinions.

How else should it be understood? You said that warez community has covered the case of preserving games. No argument with that, but the reason was DRM itself. I.e. there is no other way to preserve them, but to break DRM first. That's not necessary if the game is DRM-free to begin with. So I see it as a clear point against DRM.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 5:46 pm UTC

Quoting: Mountain ManMost publishers only really care about hindering pirates for the first week or so since that's usually when a hot game will put up its best sales numbers, and people will be more likely to buy if they can't simply download for free.

This is the crux of the matter right here. Are the people who want to pirate a game really more likely to buy it if it's not available to pirate? Or are the people who buy the game in the first week or so the people who weren't going to pirate it anyways?

I don't know the answers, but my gut feeling says that the pirates don't readily become buyers just because it hasn't been pirated yet.

Quoting: hummer010I don't know the answers, but my gut feeling says that the pirates don't readily become buyers just because it hasn't been pirated yet.

DRM is eventually broken, and most often quite quickly. Nothing stops pirates who can't break it themselves from waiting until experienced crackers will remove DRM first. The game is pirated ever since. On the other hand legitimate customers are forever stuck with DRM garbage. This in itself is actually an incentive to pirate. Same as for some the presence of DRM is an incentive to break it for sport.

Also, good games don't make profit in just a first week or so. They are profitable for way longer than that (see profits for The Witcher 3 which was released DRM-free from the start). Only some throwaway garbage becomes irrelevant after a week, but then piracy is a poor exclude for low sales, more likely bad quality is the real reason.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 6:03 pm UTC

Quoting: ShmerlDo you see Feral games on itch.io? Feral don't release their games DRM-free anywhere, not just on GOG.

*sighs* Talking to you is tiring. You're a one-trick pony that's a hairsbreadth away from sounding like a paid GOG shill.

I'll restate my point simply: Maybe GOG has things wrong with it that it could do better? That was my somewhat off-topic point and you side-stepped it. Maybe we can agree GOG is fallible, at least? No? Then we're not having a real discussion, because you're not making convincing arguments for your points, and I don't care what you have to say next if you intend to continue making the same points that keep getting refuted.

I wasn't arguing about DRM, I was arguing GOG sucks ass for what I perceive to be legitimate reasons.

But if we must talk about DRM, here goes: Every commercial enterprise (attempts to) secure its products somehow: like security guards, cameras and security tags in a physical store or registered logins associated with email addresses and/or phone numbers. Those methods are fair in my opinion. Then there's shit like Denuvo, SecuROM, RedShell, and the analytics that Canonical were sticking unto Ubuntu without their users knowing beforehand. Those methods are not fair or ethical and I try to avoid groups that have used those underhanded methods.

Steam's Steamworks DRM seems no worse than, in Linux's case, making sure that steam_api.so is running alongside the game. I consent to the data collection on my hours playing. I consent to them seeing every forum post I make. I acknowledge that I have no guarantee of privacy or security by using Steam's services. But that's just for my gaming. That isn't my bank account. It isn't information needed for employment. It isn't even really my credit card, since I use a loadable credit card for Steam that has no money on it most of the time and is useless to exploit when the last pennies are taken by the credit card company as fee for the use of that card.

Every web-facing or smartphone-connected digital storefront can be compromised and people's information leaked to third parties. GOG is no exception there, either.

I find all these risks acceptable, at least for me. That's a choice every gamer makes, whether consciously or not. I hate the concept of DRM, but something like it will always exist in the digital commercial space, whether a person believes it's an ethical system or not. Even GOG does a form of DRM, the login to the web page and the authentication of your email address are the "restrictions", despite how useless against piracy all DRM is in reality.

You are mixing up DRM with authentication and security. There is no reason to conflate them, they are completely different things. They might appear similar because they can employ encryption, but that's where the similarity ends. Authentication is simply the method to verify that you are you. It's a perfectly fine idea for purchasing anything. When you buy something in a store, your own presence (or your id) authenticates that you are you. In digital store, authentication is using the classic login / password idea. All that should be secure and use encryption, no problem with that.

DRM is not used for authentication of your purchase, it's used for restricting your use of what you bought already. It can also use encryption and etc. but not to protect you, but to restrict you (like preventing backups and so on). Feel the difference.

TL;DR: DRM is a restriction placed on your digital goods after you already bought them. That's bad. Authenticating your purchase is completely fine, since it's needed for transaction and stuff like returns and etc.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 6:15 pm UTC

Quoting: JahimselfI also prefer DRM free games in general. I think it is the best for consumers. It is quite similar to owning a DVD, or music CD, which you can carry anywhere, and copy for yourself to avoid damaging the CD. You can also lend it to someone. For me the GOG way is what suit the best what you do in reality with objects that you purchase.

Nontheless, for now Feral can not cover the cost of doing so. Even releassing a game on steam with all the advantages of it is not always worthy to cover the salary of their engineers. For instance they could not release F1 2016, probably because F2015 was not viable financially.

For them, choosing the game must be quite a bargain, because the game has to please the community as much as possible, but also to sell enough to pay the porter a wage.

Don't forget that they port a game with a team that is often 100 time smaller than the big editors. It is huge lot of work, and honestly the work is of incredible quality.

In France we have a saying which says: "Little by little, the bird makes its nest" and I think that is exactly what Feral Interactive is trying to do, and the best they can. So for now, indeed the situation is not perfect, we have to get our community growing in order for them to later be able to reach the DRM goal.

It's a personnal explanation, but I'm quite confident they are linux lovers as we all are here., and that they probably agree with what the majority of us think of DRM-free games.

Thank you for your well-worded posting and the reminder for us all here that employees and users alike that work with Linux usually love and care for Linux. Seems that this gets forgotten sometimes, especially in heated discussions like this one.

Quoting: Mountain ManI don't know the answers, but my gut feeling says that the pirates don't readily become buyers just because it hasn't been pirated yet.

According to some surveys, people who say they pirated something also paid for several digital subscription-based services, too. (ie. Netflix, Spotify etc.)

So "pirates" are increasingly looking to be regular Jos who either can't afford this additional product, or can't find it in any other form (regional restrictions, censorship, lack of publishing licenses, EOL lack of support or hosting).

Make it easier to buy than pirate and people will do it willingly, if they can afford it.


Last edited by namiko on 19 June 2018 at 7:20 pm UTC

Quoting: namikoMake it easier to buy than pirate and people will do it willingly, if they can afford it.

Yep, that's a common argument against DRM. Since digital stores are as well competing with pirate sources. If stores are encumbered with DRM restrictions (while pirate sources are not), it only hurts their potential user base.

It should be applicable to video too, but there is too much backwards thinking there, way worse than in the gaming industry. See here.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 6:29 pm UTC

@Shmerl

You seem to know a lot about DRM and GOG. May I ask you if GOG games come with an EULA?


Last edited by johndoe on 19 June 2018 at 7:14 pm UTC

Shmerl, I, too, would still like direct, irrefutable proof from Feral that they're doing this for DRM reasons. Two... just... stop talking... you don't know what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself.

Post-purchase authentication was the original purpose of DRM in its earliest forms. Fucking around with your game's digital access, gameplay capabilities, not to mention data scraping from your machine without telling you, the more egregious DRM stuff all came later. Even Wikipedia's definition of DRM is defined as "access control".

Apparently, even Nintendo Entertainment System cartridges would make you look up things in their manuals to prove you had bought a game; I remember DOS and Windows games did that too. It was all about access control. It's still about access control, authentication, today.

Here's a funny story that shows my point: My partner rented Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation. At one point a character in the game prompts you to look up Meryl's codec frequency on "the back of the CD case". He was mystified, did the character mean an in-game item? Something he'd missed? Turns out it was listed on the actual CD case that the game came with. (For young people who wouldn't know: video games were often rented without their original packaging or manuals.)

Ideally, the perfect DRM system only catches those who aren't legitimate buyers, but that doesn't happen. Doesn't mean I like it, but I'm sending my authentication data to Steam as permission to access my library. That's a restriction on how I can use the software, and I have to prove this to them with that email address, password and phone number, over and over, years after my initial purchase.

GOG will ask you for this access, too, repeatedly if you don't have cookies saved. How else do they create a business without some restrictions on who accesses their games? You have no online business if you don't place some restrictions on your assets.

By the definitions I've put forth so far, there isn't ANY online storefront that is effectively DRM-Free; so long as you're making a purchase and it isn't free (as in free beer). That's why the whole DRM argument is sort of pointless.

It's good that GOG aren't assholes with the DRM they've chosen, but they're just assholes in general to me, so nope. :P

Quoting: johndoeMay I ask you if GOG games come with an EULA?

There is user agreement with GOG, and then game can potentially provide its own agreement with the user.

Quoting: namikoyou don't know what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself.

What was that about? Feral provided enough info about this, and it's clearly their decision to make, despite many above here blaming it on original publishers or other reasons. Those who excuse their DRM stance should ask themselves what's the point of doing it.

Quoting: namikoIdeally, the perfect DRM system only catches those who aren't legitimate buyers, but that doesn't happen. Doesn't mean I like it, but I'm sending my authentication data to Steam as permission to access my library. That's a restriction on how I can use the software, and I have to prove this to them with that email address, password and phone number, over and over, years after my initial purchase.

Only to the extent that you can't back it up first. Sure, that's an aspect of DRM in Steam. That's one of the points that DRM-free is avoiding. You can back up your DRM-free purchase (from GOG or whatever store), and then use it even if that store closes down and there is no one to authenticate with. I said it quite clearly above. DRM is a restriction after purchase.

Quoting: namikoGOG will ask you for this access, too, repeatedly if you don't have cookies saved. How else do they create a business without some restrictions on who accesses their games? You have no online business if you don't place some restrictions on your assets.
making a purchase and it isn't free (as in free beer). That's why the whole DRM argument is sort of pointless.

Very simple. Sell the game, get paid for it. No DRM garbage attached to restrict the user after that. Works pretty well for them, their store is growing.

Quoting: namikoBy the definitions I've put forth so far, there isn't ANY online storefront that is effectively DRM-Free; so long as you're making a purchase and it isn't free (as in free beer). That's why the whole DRM argument is sort of pointless.

Your definition is incorrect, I already explained to you how. Authenticating you for purchase is not DRM. Restricting your use after the purchase already is.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 7:32 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: johndoeMay I ask you if GOG games come with an EULA?

There is user agreement with GOG, and then game can potentially provide its own agreement with the user.

Thank you. Please don't think I want to nail you down or something.

OK. So the EULA describes how many installations (maybe also backups) you are allowed to do inhouse and how many installations you can use at the "same time", right?

Quoting: johndoeOK. So the EULA describes how many installations (maybe also backups) you are allowed to do inhouse and how many installations you can use at the "same time", right?

No, the EULA doesn't restrict how many installations or backups you are allowed to make, as long as it's for your use. It's the point of DRM-free.


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 7:35 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: johndoeOK. So the EULA describes how many installations (maybe also backups) you are allowed to do inhouse and how many installations you can use at the "same time", right?

No, the EULA doesn't restrict how many installations or backups you are allowed to make, as long as it's for your use. It's the point of DRM-free.

OK, but are you allowed to use all these installations at the "same time"? This decision can only be made by the publisher and not GOG I think.

Quoting: johndoeOK, but are you allowed to use all these installations at the "same time"? This decision can only be made by the publisher and not GOG I think.

Normal publishers care about you not copying this to other people for instance, not about how you use it yourself. But they aren't putting any technical methods to restrict you. GOG can't force publishers of course, they need to agree to release with some terms first.

If you want to know details of the user agreement, you can see it here: https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-User-Agreement


Last edited by Shmerl on 19 June 2018 at 7:43 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: johndoeOK, but are you allowed to use all these installations at the "same time"? This decision can only be made by the publisher and not GOG I think.

Normal publishers care about you not copying this to other people for instance, not about how you use it yourself. But they aren't putting any technical methods to restrict you. GOG can't force publishers of course, they need to agree to release with some terms first.

From the view of a publisher it would be not clever to release a game DRM-free if it means that "one purchase" can be used at the "same time" by a multitudinous family.
This would mean that they lose a lot of money.


Last edited by johndoe on 19 June 2018 at 7:52 pm UTC