As Epic Games continue ignoring Linux / Steam Deck for Fortnite they're putting it on Windows Arm

@hardpenguin That "mystery" is called Micro$oft...

@finaldest If that is true, why would you choose Epic over GOG, since GOG sell games that let you own it for life? They both have open source launchers, they both have popular storefronts, but Epic offers the same licensing as Steam where you don't actually own the game just a license to play it.

@poiuz I'm sorry I guess your memory is rather hazy regarding how much time, money, and effort Valve have put into Linux improvements as a whole. This is from just over 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/zopqs3/valve_is_paying_100_opensource_developers_to_work/

Valve is Paying 100+ Open-Source Developers to work on Linux Technologies

See except for the recent The Verge interview with Valve.

Griffais says the company is also directly paying more than 100 open-source developers to work on the Proton compatibility layer, the Mesa graphics driver, and Vulkan, among other tasks like Steam for Linux and Chromebooks.

This is how Linux gaming has been able to narrow the gap with Windows by investing millions of dollars a year in improvements.

https://www.theverge.com/23499215/valve-steam-deck-interview-late-2022

The addition of Proton is in fact so significant that before Valve releasing it, you had to run the entire Steam application with WINE if you wanted to play Windows games with any decent reliability. Times were wild.

I think it is worth mentioning that most games have worked on Windows ARM either day one or after a couple of Snapdragon driver patches, anyway, without need of support from the developer. It's just the usual suspects, Fortnite and Valorant and League of Legends and perhaps PUBG and their shenanigans, that give trouble as they give trouble also in Linux.

If that is true, why would you choose Epic over GOG, since GOG sell games that let you own it for life? They both have open source launchers, they both have popular storefronts, but Epic offers the same licensing as Steam where you don't actually own the game just a license to play it.

GOG also only sells you a licence to play it - that's how software works. It's exactly the same if you buy a physical copy, for that matter.

not defending epic on this one but some devs dont trust linux because cheaters can modify the kernel to break anticheat. the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

not defending epic on this one but some devs dont trust linux because cheaters can modify the kernel to break anticheat. the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

It's not the only solution, just the one that they prefer.

GOG also only sells you a licence to play it - that's how software works. It's exactly the same if you buy a physical copy, for that matter.

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it. https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/gog-reminds-everyone-why-they-should-buy-games-there-and-not-steam-or-epic-games

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it.

No they do not. They neither have ownership of the games, nor can they sell that ownership to you. You are licensed to use the games, and they are authorised to sell that licence to you. They reserve the right to remove all the games from your library.

We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog


Last edited by CatKiller on 15 Mar 2025 at 7:30 pm UTC

the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

No. The only working solution would be to design the games to be cheat-resilient in the first place, under the assumption that the client cannot be trusted at any time. This notion that a game developer would somehow be able to wrest control of a PC from its very owner is ridiculous. People who think that ever works don't really understand security.

My assumption is Arm laptops are going to become the norm for reasonably powerful and cheap school aged users. Therefore Epic wants to support Arm devices simply to retain access to children with a parent's credit card.

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it.

No they do not. They neither have ownership of the games, nor can they sell that ownership to you. You are licensed to use the games, and they are authorised to sell that licence to you. They reserve the right to remove all the games from your library.

We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog

They say it right at the bottom of that paragraph and elaborate further down. It's for personal use, and if required, like if you're caught reselling your copy, they can of course deny further access. But a Publisher can't just revoke your license "just because" or if they're shutting down the game.

Also they're referring to your GOG library, and nothing short of sending law enforcement to confiscate your hardware can deny you access to any games you've already downloaded. Once they're on your computer, and if they're DRM-free, it's yours to keep.


Last edited by wytrabbit on 16 Mar 2025 at 3:27 am UTC

But a Publisher can't just revoke your license "just because" or if they're shutting down the game.

Yes, they can.

Also they're referring to your GOG library, and nothing short of sending law enforcement to confiscate your hardware can deny you access to any games you've already downloaded. Once they're on your computer, and if they're DRM-free, it's yours to keep.

I'm sure you'll agree that "they probably won't bother to come to your house" is an entirely different kettle of fish to the total ownership that you were claiming earlier. GOG is no different legally to Epic, Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo, nor anyone else that sells you a licence to use software.

Oh ok, so if they revoke a license how are they going to stop you from playing then?

Oh ok, so if they revoke a license how are they going to stop you from playing then?

I think that is not the question here... That way you can argue you can always download a pirate torrent mirror of the game in question (same file checksum, everything) to always be able to play it...

A pirate torrent does not provide you with a receipt.. I may no longer have access to it in my library, but I will always have a digital receipt to prove I paid for the product.

I think that @CatKiller and @wytrabbit are arguing at cross-purposes here.

@CatKiller is correct in the interpretation that the user is purchasing a license to use the software (in this case, to play the game), not actual ownership of the software. This is the same no matter which digital game store (Epic, Steam, GOG, etc.) you purchase the license (or key, if you will) from. I suspect that the point @CatKiller is trying to make is that the customer is purchasing the license not the software itself.

However, I feel that @CatKiller is being technical and, IMO, is wilfully ignoring the point @wytrabbit is trying to make. I wonder, did @CatKiller read the article that @wytrabbit linked to? GOG's primary point was as follows:

GOG's big selling point that more people should shout about is that it sells games DRM-free. When you buy a game on GOG, you get access to an offline installer for it, which you can use to install and play your games even in the event a license for it ends. It essentially uncouples the license from the game and lets you have some actual ownership of the things you buy.

Even in the event a license for it ends ...
In essence, GOG is not only selling you a license but also a backup installer that is not dependent on the digital store to function, much like the physical CD/DVD we used to get when purchasing at a brick & mortar store. Just as Developer-X cannot prevent me from installing from a DRM-free CD/DVD, Developer-Y cannot prevent me from using a DRM-free offline installer for the same purpose. While, technically, this is not ownership of the software it is, effectively, a perpetual right to install and play the game.

In the end, @wytrabbit and @CatKiller are both right. You are just looking at the issue from different angles and arguing over semantics.