Quoting: tuubiThere is a parallel, as you say, but it's so flimsy you'd better not put your weight on it. There is no hypocrisy, however, unless both choices are made for the same ideological principle.

To object to one person not using Steam and then in turn refusing to use Windows is hypocrisy. In both cases a person is boycotting a platform for reasons of their own choosing, which may or may not be ideological. One does not have to agree with those reasons, or choose to engage in the boycott themselves, but to object to the other person's choice while choosing the do the same thing under different circumstances is the definition of hypocrisy. It also shows a brazen lack of solidarity that only serves to undermine both arguments, which is why many of the same defences of Steam are often used by defenders of Windows.

This is not some flimsy pretense. The parallel is exact.

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is my perspective: it's just a bit of time-wasting entertainment and not anything of real importance in the greater scheme of life.

And once again we return to the fact that those that actually care about the medium the most tend to be those that are willing to give up playing certain games, while those that can not stand to be parted from them are the ones that do not have any respect for the medium as a whole.

Quoting: HamishTo object to one person not using Steam and then in turn refusing to use Windows is hypocrisy. In both cases a person is boycotting a platform for reasons of their own choosing, which may or may not be ideological. One does not have to agree with those reasons, or choose to engage in the boycott themselves, but to object to the other person's choice while choosing the do the same thing under different circumstances is the definition of hypocrisy.

It would only be hypocrisy if I failed to adhere to the same principles on two separate issues. I don't see how my reasons (which seem to be very distinct from your reasons) for preferring Linux could even apply to entertainment. As I see it, an operating system and a game are pretty much as different as a kitchen knife and a steel sculpture. One is a tool you depend on daily and the other is there to entertain you when you're not doing anything more important. Both are made of steel, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

Quoting: HamishThis is not some flimsy pretense. The parallel is exact.

The parallel is far from exact, as should be obvious, unless your view of the world is extremely monochrome.

I find this thema very interesting. I used to have an opinion against DRM ( https://www.gamingonlinux.com/forum/topic/1191 ) until I read this post at phoronix, and now I don't have a clear idea anymore:

QuoteShudder. Guess what. I've bough Half-Life 2 11 years ago and now I can still play it on an entirely different OS - thanks to this evil DRM platform. OTOH I do have some pristine Windows-DVDs which refused to work on WIndows since the copy protection only worked on a Win32 and not my Win 7 64bit. And I still have my DRM free ZX Spectrum Cassettes - they are really nice to look at.
You know what: I play War Thunder. And I already know, that one day there won't be enough players taking to the simulated skies and they will shut down their servers and the 50-or-so bucks spent on the game will be gone for the fun I had until then. Horrific. Indeed.

Source: phoronix forums

Quoting: HamishAnd once again we return to the fact that those that actually care about the medium the most tend to be those that are willing to give up playing certain games, while those that can not stand to be parted from them are the ones that do not have any respect for the medium as a whole.

Saying that "I can tolerate DRM/Steam because it has some games which I cannot be without" is only a hair's breadth away from being "I can tolerate Windows because it has games which I cannot part with" which is, in turn, also only a step away from claiming "I own consoles (the ultimate form of DRM+closed source software, I might add) because it has games I cannot be without".

The further out on this logical onion layering that one rests, the less respect one has for gaming as a medium, like you say. I'm glad that Valve is doing what they're doing for Linux gaming, but I have moved primarily on to DRM-free competitors despite this.

This discussion is turning in circles, but it really baffles me to see that people seem to not understand that there is an essential difference between an operating system (or a word processor, browser, 3D modeling program etc.) and a "10h-play-through-once-entertainment-experience" aka most games.
Yes those can be art, and one can rightfully care about the experience a lot, but the fact remains that it is not really necessary to be able to be able to "open up the engine and fix issues yourself" as it is for complex tools like a OS. And yes, most users don't have the ability to do so, but at least in theory you are able to do so with Linux.

To try another metaphor: I don't expect a Picasso to be available for me to modify and disassemble, and while it would be of course nice to borrow one to put into my own apartment (without the rights to alter it), I can tolerate the fact that the museum charges a modest amount for me to see it only during certain hours (=DRM). Non of this reasoning has anything to do with disrespect to the art done by Picasso. (Note: I am aware that the metaphor doesn't fully hold because we are talking about digital copies that can be replicated without loss, but the idea is still the same).

P.S.: I see only one grey-area where these two overlap (besides the tools and libraries to make games, which should be FOSS also): competitive multiplayer games or MMORPGs, people spend hundreds of hours with, are important communication devices for this sub-culture, and some people even earn a living from. But for those only DRM-free really isn't sufficient.

Edit:
Maybe another way to see it: Art/games/movies mainly transport an idea, and once you got that in your brain it can not be taken away from you again by restricting the access, while operating systems are essential tools you need to have access to all the time.

Edit2: To avoid missunderstandings... the best would be of course if all games were FOSS :p

A little tangent here, but I'm not convinced that games are art in and of themselves. What is a game? At a basic level, it's nothing more than a set of rules. Think about it. The rules for chess, for example, can be comprehensively explained in a few short paragraphs. Is that art? No more than an instruction manual that comes with your DVD player is art. Chess can be played with exquisitely hand-carved pieces. Does that make it art? The pieces themselves have artistic merit, but the game of chess is not art in and of itself because it could just as easily be played with scraps of paper, or no physical pieces at all as purely a mental exercise.

In other words, you can take the art completely out a game and the game itself will still essentially exist. This is true even for video games which are really just elaborate rulesets. Half-Life 2 could be reduced to simple line graphics with no sound effects without compromising its essential gameplay elements, because the gameplay is contained entirely in its rules.

More simply, if you take the art out of a game then the game will still exist, even if just as an abstract mental concept. Take the rules out of a game, and you're left with the art assets, but it's no longer a game. Thus, games are not art.

Quoting: Mountain ManA little tangent here, but I'm not convinced that games are art in and of themselves. What is a game? At a basic level, it's nothing more than a set of rules. [...]

Take the art out of a story-focused adventure game like The Stanley Parable or Gone Home and see how much of a game you've got left. These are extreme examples, but so is chess. Rules are needed for gameplay, but sometimes they are there simply to facilitate the experience.

Quoting: tuubiTake the art out of a story-focused adventure game like The Stanley Parable or Gone Home and see how much of a game you've got left.

You would still have the entire game left in its most essential form even if the art was reduced to simple stick figures and objects were represented with text labels. For that matter, an adventure game could be conveyed entirely through text -- like the good old days of Infocom -- without significantly impacting the essential rules that govern the gameplay.

Does art make a game more immersive and entertaining? Absolutely. But that still doesn't make games themselves art.

Quoting: tuubiIt would only be hypocrisy if I failed to adhere to the same principles on two separate issues. I don't see how my reasons (which seem to be very distinct from your reasons) for preferring Linux could even apply to entertainment. As I see it, an operating system and a game are pretty much as different as a kitchen knife and a steel sculpture. One is a tool you depend on daily and the other is there to entertain you when you're not doing anything more important. Both are made of steel, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

You are only muddying the water here. You can use Steam on Linux without being a hypocrite, and your reasons for refusing to use Windows really do not matter to my argument. What is hypocritical is refusing to use one piece of software and then complaining when others choose to do the exact same thing with a different piece of software. Why one chooses to refuse either one is really neither here nor there. It is the practice you should be endorsing.

Quoting: HamishThe parallel is far from exact, as should be obvious, unless your view of the world is extremely monochrome.

Only because you are overextending what it was I was saying, but I really do not see what can be achieved by either of us getting any more emphatic over this.

Quoting: Mountain ManMore simply, if you take the art out of a game then the game will still exist, even if just as an abstract mental concept. Take the rules out of a game, and you're left with the art assets, but it's no longer a game. Thus, games are not art.

If you takes the rules away from the game assets then the expression that the art was meant to convey is lost. Therefore only the game with both its rules and assets can be considered a complete form of human expression, which is by definition a work of art.