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

Quoting: namiko

Quoting: Shmerl...if you see it as aggressive... such positions simply must be firm.

I quit. Thanks for showing you don't give two shits about anybody posting here.

Sure, there is no point in discussing it, if you see any firm position like above. As @sbolokanov said, DRM opponents and DRM proponents won't agree on this one.


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 June 2018 at 4:44 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'm not trying to offend anyone (for once ;) ), I am just

bragging.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you do have something to brag about and do it in moderation.
However, I don't see how I was bragging in this case.

Bragging that I don't see the point in replaying most games? Huh?


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 20 June 2018 at 4:46 pm UTC

Quoting: Alm888

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI really don't get this.

Why would you replay a game that doesn't even offer replayability?

And how about "Why would you reread a book that doesn't even offer rereadability?" :P

No book does, which is why it seems so strange to me to do that.

Quoting: Alm888Different people have different tastes. You do not need to "get" their reasoning on this, just take for granted some actually enjoy replay the games of youth.

Oh, I certainly don't need to, but what exactly is the harm in trying to understand?

I always find it a bit lazy if people cannot even explain why they do or not enjoy something.
I was able to explain why I find no enjoyment in replaying most games - so it really doesn't seem far off to me that someone should be able to explain why they do.

And thankfully, some actually tried to explain:

Quoting: hummer010I do this all the time. I've read Lord of the Rings at least a dozen times. And I do it for the same reason I replay games.

I'm not very patient. When I read a book, or play a video game, I always start out planning to experience it all. Inevitably, I get impatient, I skim what I'm reading. I ignore side quests or speed through things. I get to the point where I'm speeding to the end.

Then, I play / read it again, and pick up more of what I missed the first time around. And again. And if I really like it, again and again and again.

I can get the reasoning behind this to some extent.
If you missed something due to rushing to the end (or forgetting, the human brain certainly is a sieve), then next time you'd maybe rush through the beginning but get the end. But only if it was an enjoyable experience to begin with. Makes sense.
And if you are a completionist of the Nth order, you'd probably do it again and again and again until you really saw every placed plant.

When I skip something in a game or some other media, I usually realize that it is because that content wasn't enjoyable to me to begin with. I am usually not impatient about finishing games, though.

Quoting: HamishEven if this were true, and there really was nothing you might have missed, someone spent days, weeks, months, or even years building that world for you, and for me that craftsmanship can still be worth revisiting.

Hold your horses. Your due to the creators/authors/whatever was paid the moment you laid cash on the table. You do not own the creator of any media anything more than that.

However, I do get the reasoning behind simply revisiting something you already know just to appreciate the craftmanship. It's not something I would do if there is instead something new to discover (and considering the speed games come out, there usually is), but I can understand that.

See? I already learned two new things about my fellow human beings!


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 20 June 2018 at 5:16 pm UTC

Quoting: sbolokanovI think we need to agree, that we do not agree...

...I hope both sides see what they actually say.

Thanks for the concern. We just have fundamentally different ideas on how things work with DRM and there's nowhere to go from there.

Sometimes being a bit of an asshole is the only way to convince someone they're being one, but it didn't work this time.

I don't care that we don't agree, live and let live about that, seriously. But it pissed me off to have well thought-out talking points ignored, only to hear more of the same arguments when I already said they weren't convincing.

Shmerl still isn't listening and that was the last straw. Just saying it clearly so no one mistakes my position.


Last edited by namiko on 20 June 2018 at 5:16 pm UTC

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

Shmerl's position is not quite as extreme as some have been characterizing it. Basically, he does agree that we don't know the mental state of Feral decision makers, but claims something along the lines of
(1) Whatever their mental state is, it clearly does not involve making an effort to release DRM-free software, thus that mental state cannot be anti-DRM in the same sense as that of others who do make such an effort.
(2) Anyone who releases things with DRM and makes no obvious effort to release anything without DRM is in effect pro-DRM. Even if somewhere in their hearts, Feral decision makers do prefer DRM-free software, such private virtue is worthless if it has no functional result. So for Shmerl, Feral are pro-DRM in the sense that their deeds are the same as the deeds of a pro-DRM group would be; their mental state is almost irrelevant.
(3) Since they won't tell us their mental state, leaving nothing except their functional results as a guide, and their functional results are identical to those of a pro-DRM group, but not identical to those of an anti-DRM group, he thinks it reasonable to treat and describe them as if their mental state matched their actions.

Martin Luther King made roughly the same argument about US "liberals" who were not themselves pro-segregation but resisted the civil rights movement on the basis that it "rocked the boat" and so forth; he considered them almost more of a problem than the actual racists.

The arguments against describing Feral as "pro-DRM" are also compelling. They come down to
(A) We don't know their mental state, so it could be anti-DRM or at least not actively pro-DRM.
(B) There are known, and perhaps unknown, barriers to publishing with GOG, with GOG under Linux in specific, and to some extent to publishing ported games DRM-free at all. It is plausible that Feral may merely not be anti-DRM enough to outweigh these barriers.
(C) We like Feral because they port lots of good games to Linux so we want to give them the benefit of the doubt on moral issues. This is basically an emotional argument, but not less important for that; it can be restated in a more cynical political form--ignoring imperfections in one's allies for the sake of the major objective is an important element of "realpolitik" thinking.

These positions are to some extent talking past each other. Arguments (A) and (B) are arguments about Feral's internal state, which don't really speak to Shmerl's functionalist position--he doesn't care very much what their internal state is. And argument (C) is based on the idea that Linux advocacy is more important than DRM issues. Shmerl seems to have a different politics which considers DRM issues more important, or at least as important, as Linux advocacy. I myself consider the spread of open source operating systems (mainly Linux just now) the more important strategically, but if I did consider DRM (and the legal issues surrounding it) the more important then someone doing something else good wouldn't cut much ice with me if they're doing DRM bad. So again, that's not something people should be expecting will convince Shmerl.

As to arguments with Shmerl about whether DRM is important at all, or whether Steam's usually-pretty-transparent DRM is still a problem . . . Shmerl isn't stupid and he's clearly looked into this stuff a lot. There really are fairly important political and legal issues involved in DRM, and Shmerl clearly cares more about the principles than the details of one scheme versus another. People who don't know or care about the issues Shmerl has read up on are not going to convince him of anything. (I personally think DRM is a relatively minor symptom of much bigger issues around globalized capitalism, and it's not going to get better unless the global trade and "intellectual property" regime are changed in a big way. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about it.)

So you'll just have to agree to disagree. This expectation that all of you dogpiling on Shmerl and not really coming to grips with his position just naturally should have got him to shut up and see how wrong he is, is a delusion.

@Purple Library Guy: very good summary of main argument points, thanks. To add to your point (B) above, while GOG indeed can have their own barriers, they aren't the only option for those who want to make DRM-free releases, so for Feral that barrier isn't necessarily driven by GOG specifically.


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 June 2018 at 5:40 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

Shmerl's position is not quite as extreme as some have been characterizing it. Basically, he does agree that we don't know the mental state of Feral decision makers, but claims something along the lines of
(1) Whatever their mental state is, it clearly does not involve making an effort to release DRM-free software, thus that mental state cannot be anti-DRM in the same sense as that of others who do make such an effort.
(2) Anyone who releases things with DRM and makes no obvious effort to release anything without DRM is in effect pro-DRM. Even if somewhere in their hearts, Feral decision makers do prefer DRM-free software, such private virtue is worthless if it has no functional result. So for Shmerl, Feral are pro-DRM in the sense that their deeds are the same as the deeds of a pro-DRM group would be; their mental state is almost irrelevant.
(3) Since they won't tell us their mental state, leaving nothing except their functional results as a guide, and their functional results are identical to those of a pro-DRM group, but not identical to those of an anti-DRM group, he thinks it reasonable to treat and describe them as if their mental state matched their actions.

Martin Luther King made roughly the same argument about US "liberals" who were not themselves pro-segregation but resisted the civil rights movement on the basis that it "rocked the boat" and so forth; he considered them almost more of a problem than the actual racists.

The arguments against describing Feral as "pro-DRM" are also compelling. They come down to
(A) We don't know their mental state, so it could be anti-DRM or at least not actively pro-DRM.
(B) There are known, and perhaps unknown, barriers to publishing with GOG, with GOG under Linux in specific, and to some extent to publishing ported games DRM-free at all. It is plausible that Feral may merely not be anti-DRM enough to outweigh these barriers.
(C) We like Feral because they port lots of good games to Linux so we want to give them the benefit of the doubt on moral issues. This is basically an emotional argument, but not less important for that; it can be restated in a more cynical political form--ignoring imperfections in one's allies for the sake of the major objective is an important element of "realpolitik" thinking.

These positions are to some extent talking past each other. Arguments (A) and (B) are arguments about Feral's internal state, which don't really speak to Shmerl's functionalist position--he doesn't care very much what their internal state is. And argument (C) is based on the idea that Linux advocacy is more important than DRM issues. Shmerl seems to have a different politics which considers DRM issues more important, or at least as important, as Linux advocacy. I myself consider the spread of open source operating systems (mainly Linux just now) the more important strategically, but if I did consider DRM (and the legal issues surrounding it) the more important then someone doing something else good wouldn't cut much ice with me if they're doing DRM bad. So again, that's not something people should be expecting will convince Shmerl.

As to arguments with Shmerl about whether DRM is important at all, or whether Steam's usually-pretty-transparent DRM is still a problem . . . Shmerl isn't stupid and he's clearly looked into this stuff a lot. There really are fairly important political and legal issues involved in DRM, and Shmerl clearly cares more about the principles than the details of one scheme versus another. People who don't know or care about the issues Shmerl has read up on are not going to convince him of anything. (I personally think DRM is a relatively minor symptom of much bigger issues around globalized capitalism, and it's not going to get better unless the global trade and "intellectual property" regime are changed in a big way. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about it.)

So you'll just have to agree to disagree. This expectation that all of you dogpiling on Shmerl and not really coming to grips with his position just naturally should have got him to shut up and see how wrong he is, is a delusion.

That was extraordinarily well articulated. Kudos to you.

Purple Library Guy has somehow just managed to recover this train wreck of a thread, I think.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

It's not Shmerl's opinions that are fanatical, it's the way he engages with people.

With your post above you managed to summarize the arguments of both sides with logic and respect while pointing out that some boil down to personal preference or hypotheticals. That's hardly the approach Shmerl has chosen. I won't rehash what Namiko already said, but stating that Feral is categorically pro-DRM and whatnot and rebuffing anyone who points out the nuances in the issue in question is not an argument or a conversation, it's mindless preaching. There is no productive discussion to be had with someone like that.

In fact it's so revolting that I too find myself wanting to defend DRM although I would much prefer it not to exist, just because I don't want to side with someone who has thrown logic out the window and refuses to look at an issue from all sides. But there's no point shouting at someone who is deaf.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

Shmerl's position is not quite as extreme as some have been characterizing it. Basically, he does agree that we don't know the mental state of Feral decision makers, but claims something along the lines of
(1) Whatever their mental state is, it clearly does not involve making an effort to release DRM-free software, thus that mental state cannot be anti-DRM in the same sense as that of others who do make such an effort.
(2) Anyone who releases things with DRM and makes no obvious effort to release anything without DRM is in effect pro-DRM. Even if somewhere in their hearts, Feral decision makers do prefer DRM-free software, such private virtue is worthless if it has no functional result. So for Shmerl, Feral are pro-DRM in the sense that their deeds are the same as the deeds of a pro-DRM group would be; their mental state is almost irrelevant.
(3) Since they won't tell us their mental state, leaving nothing except their functional results as a guide, and their functional results are identical to those of a pro-DRM group, but not identical to those of an anti-DRM group, he thinks it reasonable to treat and describe them as if their mental state matched their actions.

Martin Luther King made roughly the same argument about US "liberals" who were not themselves pro-segregation but resisted the civil rights movement on the basis that it "rocked the boat" and so forth; he considered them almost more of a problem than the actual racists.

The arguments against describing Feral as "pro-DRM" are also compelling. They come down to
(A) We don't know their mental state, so it could be anti-DRM or at least not actively pro-DRM.
(B) There are known, and perhaps unknown, barriers to publishing with GOG, with GOG under Linux in specific, and to some extent to publishing ported games DRM-free at all. It is plausible that Feral may merely not be anti-DRM enough to outweigh these barriers.
(C) We like Feral because they port lots of good games to Linux so we want to give them the benefit of the doubt on moral issues. This is basically an emotional argument, but not less important for that; it can be restated in a more cynical political form--ignoring imperfections in one's allies for the sake of the major objective is an important element of "realpolitik" thinking.

These positions are to some extent talking past each other. Arguments (A) and (B) are arguments about Feral's internal state, which don't really speak to Shmerl's functionalist position--he doesn't care very much what their internal state is. And argument (C) is based on the idea that Linux advocacy is more important than DRM issues. Shmerl seems to have a different politics which considers DRM issues more important, or at least as important, as Linux advocacy. I myself consider the spread of open source operating systems (mainly Linux just now) the more important strategically, but if I did consider DRM (and the legal issues surrounding it) the more important then someone doing something else good wouldn't cut much ice with me if they're doing DRM bad. So again, that's not something people should be expecting will convince Shmerl.

As to arguments with Shmerl about whether DRM is important at all, or whether Steam's usually-pretty-transparent DRM is still a problem . . . Shmerl isn't stupid and he's clearly looked into this stuff a lot. There really are fairly important political and legal issues involved in DRM, and Shmerl clearly cares more about the principles than the details of one scheme versus another. People who don't know or care about the issues Shmerl has read up on are not going to convince him of anything. (I personally think DRM is a relatively minor symptom of much bigger issues around globalized capitalism, and it's not going to get better unless the global trade and "intellectual property" regime are changed in a big way. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about it.)

So you'll just have to agree to disagree. This expectation that all of you dogpiling on Shmerl and not really coming to grips with his position just naturally should have got him to shut up and see how wrong he is, is a delusion.

I completely agree with your analysis. Some value spreading Linux more important than DRM-free, other see DRM-free more important than bringing Linux to masses. All care for and love Linux.

That said I also want to add some of my frustration when engaging in a discussion with Shmerl. I'm fine with Steam's DRM and are perfectly fine with Shmerl avoiding it, though I interpret Shmerl reaction that Steam users do actively support DRM, thus they behave bad, thus they are bad. That feels kind-of not very good.

Anyway, @Shmerl, you have your skills to discuss (and apparently a lot of time too ;)), I think that you are OK and that the position you take is OK. I hope that I'm OK from your perspective too, even if I value Linux and the ability to play games on Steam more than a DRM-free world.

Have a good evening.


Last edited by jens on 20 June 2018 at 6:02 pm UTC