Quoting: Quote from fabertaweI have highlighted where you are contradicting yourself.

The assumption was not from him not having the same experiences as me, it was from his own words that suggested the world I know when it comes to gaming was almost unreal to him.

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweYour elitism is assuming you are somehow more enlightened, not because you have an understanding of how much diversity there actually is on this planet. I have that understanding also, as I suspect do quite a lot of people. Personally, I wouldn't try telling people I know better than them when I know nothing of their life or circumstances.

My assumptions on his life and circumstances come from his own words, something I can read and judge from. It may be a from a narrow aspect of his life, but this is a narrow discussion. If my assumptions are false, then you can have an argument.

Incidentally, the root of my comment came from the amusement I felt that we both felt the other was missing out on something, perhaps showing us as both flawed in our assumptions.
 

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweIt's not a fabrication at all, I have quoted what you said. If you are saying I have misinterpreted your meaning then fair enough, my mistake but that's how I understood it at the time.

Your quote of me is a fabrication - you selectively took the end of a statement and then added your own conclusions as a clarifier. Go back and read what I actually said: "I enjoy my gaming, and do not feel any great loss from my desire to keep it DRM free. But even if I did, it would be paltry compared to so many of the other things that I have been forced to deny myself, by choice or by fate." Your argument suffers heavily from the fallacy of quoting out of context.
 

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweIt is the most effective way to influence a business, that is patently obvious! No sales, no revenue, no business.

It is still hugely ineffective. Companies have admitted to ignoring small profits if it does not suit their larger vision; many firms have acknowledged that Linux support would bring in more than what they would spend on it, but still not enough for them to feel like it is worth their time. Meagre buying power is not going going to convince EA, Activision, or even Valve to remove their DRM. Further, lets assume I protest DRM by not buying this new Metro game everyone is talking about. Problem is, they never assumed my sale, so how on earth would they feel the hit?

Crowdfunding, wherein stated goals are floated and the response measured, and organized boycotts, wherein enough people voice their feelings on the matter to make the company in question aware of what they are doing, have the potential to be effective. Buying DRM free titles can also be a way of showing support for them, but not buying a DRM infested title does not really do much to protest what I find disagreeable in it, as is how my not buying a Coke last month is not going to be seen by them as a major protest against the CocaCola corporation.

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweThe problem is, however, that if you're that fervently against DRM of any and all kinds then that's the logical conclusion. All in or not at all.

I get my DRM free game, and they collect money from the DRM free release. As long as I do not use the key I do not show up in relation to Steam at all. That does not seem to be a violation of "all in".

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweOh come on. I don't know what's required to make a game "Steam tied" (perhaps you could educate me there) but it's hardly the same as porting to another OS!

Assuming that you use cross-platform libraries and development resources, the effort to port to a new operating system is almost inconsequential. But if you rely on Steam for multiplayer, achievements, and the like, and then you want to release a game with the same feature set elsewhere, the transition is going to be more painful.

About voting with your wallet and DRM:

This has several levels. First of all, the main driver behind DRM are legacy publishers. They want developers, distributors and users to bend to their crazy demands. Voting with your wallet can refer to any of those three groups refusing to bend. I.e. not just users, but all three. However this refusal works more effectively when someone with bigger influence does that. And that usually are developers and distributors. Users of course matter, but it's harder to reach critical mass, when so many (like even here on the forum and amongst Linux users) simply don't care to vote against DRM. I.e. when GOG votes with their wallet by refusing to accept any DRMed games from the publishers, publishers get the message. They surely don't care about any individual user, since they never deal with them directly. And if their crazy thirst for DRM is stronger than logic, they won't use GOG, and will go to Steam or other subservient distributor who bends to their DRM dictate. But users choice is not irrelevant. It's  all chained up. Users can support distributors who don't bend, which makes them more competitive and helps in the big picture. So no, voting with your wallet is effective. Bigger effect is made from the sum of its smaller parts.

That's why I don't buy the argument about Steam or Netflix or any other distributor, that it's not their fault that they proliferate DRM, and publishers should be blamed. No, it's their fault that they oblige those crazy demands instead of refusing them. So we as users should influence them (the distributors), by supporting those who refuse to accept DRMed content.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlBut users choice is not irrelevant. It's all chained up. Users can support distributors who don't bend, which makes them more competitive and helps in the big picture. So no, voting with your wallet is effective. Bigger effect is made from the sum of its smaller parts.

It is irrelevant when it comes to penalizing DRM use. I already stated that it can be used to support developers that release DRM free releases, but that is not going to stop those that do choose to use DRM from using it.

It will, if there is a significant amount. Any amount starts with personal choices. If you don't make it assuming that others won't - then why anyone would? So change your assumptions and don't bother speculating what others will or won't do. Just do what you think is right.

This applies to any positive change you want to see. If you employ the logic of despair - you'll never see any positive changes at all.

It is not so much a "logic of despair" that I preach, but a realization that there needs to be some sort of organization here if you want to achieve results. Merely screaming to someone that they have lost a customer is typically not going to cut it, despite the oft repeated mantra.

The only new games I buy are Linux native and DRM free; I add the new caveat as I do very occasionally purchase older games from second hand outlets such as thrift shops that may not be for Linux. At the same time, I recognize that my own personal spending patterns have only a limited effect on what we are hoping to achieve.

Money, while undoubtedly the operating factor here, is terrible at giving everyone an equal voice. It is a fallacy to assume that it is. I do buy what I think is best to support, but I do not do it under any particularly strained notions of changing the world by it.

Anyway, things work when personal choices combine. SOPA and ACTA were busted because people didn't say - "no chance to influence anything", but because they simply said "we aren't accepting those". It didn't look like that could ever work, but it did.

There is a difference between a political and a corporate action though - in the end, no software developer or video game publisher has any requirement to bend to public pressure as long as they act within the law. In theory, every elected official does have such a requirement, as they ideally do need to represent the will of their constituents. EA and Valve have no obligations to you outside the narrow range of buyer and seller, and by not buying their products we can not even claim those limited rights.

DMCA 1201 is considered unconstitutional even by some law scholars (for example it violates free speech rights, and also it bans exercising the fair use), and surely it's not acceptable for the general public as a sensible law. Yet it's a direct result of the DRM paranoia, and is officially declared as "within the law". Politicians don't have any requirement to bend to public pressure either, but if they risk losing power, they can change their mind. Instead of power, companies are scared of losing markets. In all this, the difference between power and corporate interest which lobbies that power is really more and more indistinguishable.

Quoting: Quote from HamishYour quote of me is a fabrication - you selectively took the end of a statement and then added your own conclusions as a clarifier. Go back and read what I actually said: "I enjoy my gaming, and do not feel any great loss from my desire to keep it DRM free. But even if I did, it would be paltry compared to so many of the other things that I have been forced to deny myself, by choice or by fate." Your argument suffers heavily from the fallacy of quoting out of context.

Like I said, my mistake. I'm starting to sound like I'm on some kind of witchhunt with this now, so I apologise Hamish and will leave it there.

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweIt is the most effective way to influence a business, that is patently obvious! No sales, no revenue, no business.

It is still hugely ineffective. Companies have admitted to ignoring small profits if it does not suit their larger vision; many firms have acknowledged that Linux support would bring in more than what they would spend on it, but still not enough for them to feel like it is worth their time. Meagre buying power is not going going to convince EA, Activision, or even Valve to remove their DRM. Further, lets assume I protest DRM by not buying this new Metro game everyone is talking about. Problem is, they never assumed my sale, so how on earth would they feel the hit?

Crowdfunding, wherein stated goals are floated and the response measured, and organized boycotts, wherein enough people voice their feelings on the matter to make the company in question aware of what they are doing, have the potential to be effective. Buying DRM free titles can also be a way of showing support for them, but not buying a DRM infested title does not really do much to protest what I find disagreeable in it, as is how my not buying a Coke last month is not going to be seen by them as a major protest against the CocaCola corporation.

I wasn't referring specifically to Linux but the concept, I didn't realise DRM was limited to Linux ;) It's not about assumed sales but actual sales. If they make none then they will realise (eventually) that they have a problem and may even try to do something to rectify it.

Even if you are talking just Linux then I still do not understand your point. If Linux sales are that small to start with then by boycotting DRM titles the developer will definitely stop making Linux ports if sales are approaching zero. Result! If everyone were to "protest DRM by not buying this new Metro game" then they would have no sales and would feel the hit. The same applies to your Coke example. I think I can safely say they didn't make a Linux version of Metro just for the fun of it!

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweThe problem is, however, that if you're that fervently against DRM of any and all kinds then that's the logical conclusion. All in or not at all.

I get my DRM free game, and they collect money from the DRM free release. As long as I do not use the key I do not show up in relation to Steam at all. That does not seem to be a violation of "all in".

Well I do see it as hypocrasy! I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you see all DRM as bad, that there is no such thing as "good" DRM (i.e. Steam). Well Shmerl makes a very interesting and valid point...

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlAbout voting with your wallet and DRM:
...[snip]...
But users choice is not irrelevant. It's all chained up. Users can support distributors who don't bend, which makes them more competitive and helps in the big picture. So no, voting with your wallet is effective. Bigger effect is made from the sum of its smaller parts.

That's why I don't buy the argument about Steam or Netflix or any other distributor, that it's not their fault that they proliferate DRM, and publishers should be blamed. No, it's their fault that they oblige those crazy demands instead of refusing them. So we as users should influence them (the distributors), by supporting those who refuse to accept DRMed content.

The highlight is mine. Hamish, you support distributors (I'm including devs) who do bend, who produce or are complicit with DRM builds of their games. I'm assuming Shmerl doesn't, that's why he/she wrote that.

If that is the case then Shmerl is the only one who actually stands by their conviction.

fabertawe: That's the reason why Humble Bundle became more questionable. However, there still is a difference between developers who sell their games strictly as DRMed, and those who sell them DRM free and additionally through DRMed distributors. The former case is really a problem, the later case doesn't prevent users from using the DRM free option, so it doesn't really limit their choice. So I view distributors like GOG to be the best case. Humble Bundle is in between, they offer DRM free games and also produce real Linux ports, but they offer DRMed ones as well (indirectly, through other distributors like Steam or Origin). Desura is kind of similar, but they expressed their negative view on DRM in the past. Steam is worse than either of those. So I still buy DRM free games from Humble Bundle, because they are still putting efforts into DRM free Linux gaming (unlike GOG who don't support Linux yet), but I feel less and less incentive to do that. That's why I think it's very important for GOG to start supporting Linux, then they'll be really the best distributor to support.