There 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.

This 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.

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 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.

This 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:

Shudder. 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

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.

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.

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. [...]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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

The discussion is turning circles because it is already the same as always: We are talking about DRM at all, we are talking about the basic problems and it does nothing more. What is changed for now? Has anybody quit Steam for now? Even if most participants here have a common sense for DRM after writing in the forum here the next step is therefore to login in the Steam-profile searching for next release. Indeed that does not change anything and turning circles. Indeed a game is not comparable to an operating-system but to be clear: What about the activation of Microsoft Windows? What about the forced cloud-usage of the so-called Adobe Creative Suite? What about dongled software from Autodesk? Even if DRM is mostly used for games it won't stay there as it also demonstrated through beloved AACS for example. And it would be horrific if the companies have the complete power to intend what should be consumed or even which information should be known. We are already there! Do we have to support that voluntary by using tools?

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.

Hey, no cheating. The text is art as well. So that goes with the rest. If the visuals are replaced by stick figures, you need to replace the text with minimal placeholders. Sure, you can still call it a game if you want, but not the same one. This would be a bit like melting a statue down to a lump of bronze and calling the result basically the same thing.

My point is: Even if chess isn't art, you simply cannot extrapolate that no game is art. A piece of art is still a piece of art even if it is somehow functional. And most forms of art require rules, materials or other "non art stuff" to exist. But there's no universal definition of art, and no clear distinction between art and entertainment. Just like there's no objective definition of "good" art.

[...] but I really do not see what can be achieved by either of us getting any more emphatic over this.

Agreed. No offense meant at any point of the conversation or course. My less than stellar social skills (and more often than not my dry sense of humour) sometimes make others assume hostility. On the contrary, I tend to like people, and what little I've gleaned of your character here on GOL makes me inclined to like you as well. So let's just amiably agree to disagree, although I'm still not sure we actually do.

edit: typo

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.

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.

A rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

Art in games is used as a means to an end to convey the rules that define the gameplay. This does make rules themselves art. Therefore, games themselves are not art.

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.

Hey, no cheating. The text is art as well. So that goes with the rest. If the visuals are replaced by stick figures, you need to replace the text with minimal placeholders. Sure, you can still call it a game if you want, but not the same one. This would be a bit like melting a statue down to a lump of bronze and calling the result basically the same thing.

My point is: Even if chess isn't art, you simply cannot extrapolate that no game is art. A piece of art is still a piece of art even if it is somehow functional. And most forms of art require rules, materials or other "non art stuff" to exist. But there's no universal definition of art, and no clear distinction between art and entertainment. Just like there's no objective definition of "good" art.

Text can be used to convey art, but text in and of itself is not art.

And again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

Text can be used to convey art, but text in and of itself is not art.

You're funny. By text I'm obviously referring to the content. I'm hardly talking about the font or the grammar. I thought we already covered this nonsense. Next you'll be telling me literature and poetry are not art. After all they're both just text.

And again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

We're not discussing the relative importance of a game's constituent parts, or even which of these parts have artistic value, but if their combination can be viewed as art. The ruleset might be vital to make a text adventure into a game, but the art is essential to make it worth our time. A game is not a concept you can cover with a single rule of thumb, as evidenced by you lumping chess and Gone Home into the same category, so your mileage may vary.

Sorry, double post.

Agreed. No offense meant at any point of the conversation or course. My less than stellar social skills (and more often than not my dry sense of humour) sometimes make others assume hostility. On the contrary, I tend to like people, and what little I've gleaned of your character here on GOL makes me inclined to like you as well. So let's just amiably agree to disagree, although I'm still not sure we actually do.

No one in this thread has anything to apologize for. Any hostility that can be inferred is just the risk that comes from fronting an argument.

A rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

I would say that all abstract human expression qualifies as art, which could even be argued to include a cohesive rule set which would make your entire argument invalid to begin with when coupled with my definition.

The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated

Nothing in this definition disqualifies the inclusion of a rule set either.

In the end though all this argument is really attempting to do is degrade games enough in order to justify your apathy, which I still can not help but find strange from someone who is invested enough to be active on a gaming focused forum.

And again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

We're not discussing the relative importance of a game's constituent parts, or even which of these parts have artistic value, but if their combination can be viewed as art.

Just because there is art in a game does not make the game itself art. Going back to the chess example, you can argue that the pieces represent art, but the game of chess in and of itself is not art. It's the same thing with video games. Like chess, they use art to make the presentation of the rules more intuitive and entertaining, but the game itself -- that is to say the rulesets that mark the division between a work of art and a game -- is not art.

To put it another way, the closer a game is to art, the less it looks like a game.

A rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

I would say that all abstract human expression qualifies as art, which could even be argued to include a cohesive rule set which would make your entire argument invalid to begin with when coupled with my definition.

But as I've noted, I reject your definition as adhoc and self-serving.

The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated

Nothing in this definition disqualifies the inclusion of a rule set either.

And, as such, that is a very poor definition of art, otherwise you're placed in the absurd position of arguing that the rules for chess are a work of art.

I think a much better definition can be found with a simple Google search: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power".

I do not think games qualify as art based on this definition, which is a more widely recognized understanding of the term than the ridiculously broad definition you dug up at "The Free Dictionary" (and why do I get the feeling that you kept looking until you found a definition that suited your argument?).

In the end though all this argument is really attempting to do is degrade games enough in order to justify your apathy, which I still can not help but find strange from someone who is invested enough to be active on a gaming focused forum.

I'm not trying to degrade games at all. I appreciate them as a form of entertainment, but I don't try and make them something they're not. What I find baffling are the people who feel the need to falsely elevate games to an artform in order to justify their interest in them. Isn't it enough to say that I enjoy playing games? For that matter, I enjoy watching football, but I don't need to convince anybody that the game of football is an artform in order to justify my interest.

I think the late Roger Ebert put it very well:

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

[...]

"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

"Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, 'I'm studying a great form of art?' Then let them say it, if it makes them happy."
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

Just because there is art in a game does not make the game itself art.

No, but the existence of rules does not disqualify it as art either. I'd say it's a game if you can play it. Your examples only work if you use a very narrow definition of games, excluding almost anything you'll find on sale today.

Going back to the chess example, ...

Please don't. Just let go. Chess is not representative of modern computer games.

... you can argue that the pieces represent art, ...

I haven't, and I won't. Chess pieces are irrelevant to the discussion.

... but the game of chess in and of itself is not art. It's the same thing with video games. Like chess, they use art to make the presentation of the rules more intuitive and entertaining, but the game itself -- that is to say the rulesets that mark the division between a work of art and a game -- is not art.

Chess is not art, agreed. There's lots of games that are hard to, and would indeed be pointless to classify as art. But let's move on. How about the rest? Should there not be interactivity in art? Why do we need a clear separation between art and games?

To put it another way, the closer a game is to art, the less it looks like a game.

If that were true, what about the inverse? Does a game look more like a game if you remove the soundtrack? Or if you make the graphics more spartan and business-like? Your statement only works if you ignore the fact that gaming has evolved since noughts and crosses. If a definition does not work in the modern world, you really need to update it.

I think the late Roger Ebert put it very well:

I think he once again spouted a metric ton of embarrassingly self-assured opinion, but that was his job.