Quoting: ShmerlWell, except it isn't. DRM doesn't increase sales as known. So it can't feed greed. What it feeds is usually feeling of control (false one at that).

Great counter-point. Still, Denuvo doesn't want to die and new DRM system becoming more insane.
One thing I'm forgot to mention here about devs/game studios greediness is:

MICROTRANSACTION & LOOT BOXES!

I'm totally forgot where I read it (blog or something), but it's state that DRM also one of contributing factor to rise lootboxes.

I don't think any publisher actually hates Linux. All they care is money, and if we don't have, say, Skyrim on Linux, that's because Bethesda asks too much for it. I also believe they ask the same amount of money for every platform (Steam Linux / Steam Mac / GOG Linux / GOG Mac), so if ports on Steam are hardly profitable, of course they won't be available on GOG.

And how DRM would help to use lootboxes? A game could be even FOSS and have them.

The good news is that lootbox mania is dying down. Battlefront 2 and Shadow of War have already got rid of lootboxes, and publishers will think twice if negative reviews and hatred from gamers are tolerable price for profit from lootboxes. Unfortunately, Denuvo is hated much less than lootboxes, and most people accept DRM. But Denuvo doesn't prevent games from being ported to Linux. RotTR is still Denuvo'd on Windows.

Here is my take on it: Feral get porting jobs with particular publishers/developers. The publisher would need to release the Windows version of the game on GOG *before* Feral could release the Linux port on GOG. Has any publisher who has been ported to Linux by Feral released the Windows version of the game on GOG? - Haven't checked but I predict: "No"

Quoting: g000hThe publisher would need to release the Windows version of the game on GOG *before* Feral could release the Linux port on GOG. Has any publisher who has been ported to Linux by Feral released the Windows version of the game on GOG? - Haven't checked but I predict: "No"

Let's assume this is correct (even though GOG happily release Windows only versions even when Linux ones exist, so they can do in reverse too?). It means, Feral should have no problem releasing their versions only through their site DRM-free, right? So why don't they?

Quoting: Avehicle7887A good example in this case is Aspyr with their port for Observer and Layers of Fear. The Linux versions are both available on GOG and they are most likely so because the developer/IP Owner gave the green light.

Yet they released KoTOR 2 in Steam but not in GOG even though the Windows version tis here too.

Quoting: ShmerlLet's assume this is correct (even though GOG happily release Windows only versions even when Linux ones exist, so they can do in reverse too?). It means, Feral should have no problem releasing their versions only through their site DRM-free, right? So why don't they?

Gog might not allow that in the current market situation and I could kind of understand if they didn't. The clueless masses have been indoctrinated with the notion that PC=Windows and all the games work on it. I don't think there are even any Mac exclusives like Marathon these days. Even if the OS requirement was clearly marked, there might be more accidental Windows buyers than Linux ones with the associated costs with refunds etc. Also a certain segment of their Windows-users would throw an epic tantrum. Admittedly amusing to watch for a bystander like me, but less so for the Gog staff.

tl;dr Gog should totally start releasing Linux-only games. :D

Edit: None of the above applies to Feral's own site of course.

-

Quoting: jensIf these are indeed their thoughts regarding piracy I would sympathize with them.

I wouldn't. They should know better. DRM doesn't deter piracy, it only causes those who use it lose sales, and it punishes paying customers.

Quoting: jensObviously they will never give you such an answer because words like this would end up prominently on the internet within no time and a certain very vocal part of the Linux community would immediately start shitstorms and damage their reputation.

Trying to hide shady behavior, wouldn't make their reputation better either. I'd say it would make it worse, since it's a method to pretend to be who they aren't. At least legacy publishers who insist on DRM have the guts to admit it.

Quoting: jensDisclaimer: these are just my assumptions and thoughts, no idea if this mirrors actual facts.

Yes, the above is just hypothetical too.

-

Quoting: jens

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: jensIf these are indeed their thoughts regarding piracy I would sympathize with them.

I wouldn't. They should know better. DRM doesn't deter piracy, it only causes those who use it lose sales, and it punishes paying customers.

Of course you don't agree ;)

Please stop with the condescension. Or are you calling him a pirate perhaps? Studies* clearly show software piracy doesn't cause the losses publishers claim (or believe) they do. These companies pay for DRM purely out of ignorance or plain stubborn refusal to accept the facts. And understanding and admitting this is not the same as advocating piracy.

* Use your favourite search engine to search for "eu study piracy" if you've somehow managed to miss this. Sorry, don't have time to look for a good source right now.