Gaming was meant to be free

[jdodson]

So, since we all are seemingly using Ubuntu, or at least ill make that assumption even though it might not be totally accurate(some gamers dual boot to Windows), I was wondering about something...

I guess, since the point, or I think the point of Ubuntu and free software in general is freedom. Why do people try and plays non-free games using a free operating system? Most games I see people needing help installing are mostly not free software games(in this forum). I mean, its pretty simple why I guess, Wesnoth is a apt-get install away and works great. I mean, it really should right, its a free software game, Ubuntu builds it from source, that ******* rocks.

But people still want to run non-free games and need help doing that, which is fine, I am not coming down on that. My question is more like, why use Ubuntu to play non-free games when you could just as well use Windows XP?

Obviously the freedom of free software is not important to gamers? Or maybe I should rephrase, why do gamers need a free operating system to run games that do not respect ones freedom?

When I ran Windows(before I realized the important of my freedom), I never had problems with viruses, trojans or spyware. So please, avoid that arguement on why that makes Ubuntu better, Ubuntu is better, but not purely based on technical reasons(though there are many technical reasons why it is superior). Windows XP can be locked down, albiet not everyone that uses Windows does or can, but I was far from a "dumb user."

I have not seen a correlation with non-free games getting more FPS on Ubuntu either.

So I guess, I just don't see why people do it.

I do play games on Ubuntu, I ******* love Tetris, Wesnoth and Nexuiz(all free software games).

I am not saying commercial non-free games are not of higher quality, they are usually, but I am asking more of a philisophical question. I don't mean to come off holier-than-thou, I am not holy at all, just wondering peoples reasoning I guess.

[diepruis]

Or maybe I should rephrase, why do gamers need a free operating system to run games that do not respect ones freedom?

Probably because of a dislike of windows, a liking for linux or a desire for freedom. Running Ubuntu instead of WinXP is at least a little bit closer to freedom even if you're not willing to give up gaming.

I think open source can only improve games. Think mods. Think VTM:Bloodlines. What if the community could have fixed that travesty? How much better would it have been?

Don't worry, our time will come. Linux/Open Source is slowly being accepted. Give it a few years and all our games will come with tarballs. Maybe I'll get back to commercial games then .

[vem0m]

ok u just opened up a world of conflicting views in your post i play non free games as no linux is not representing FREE SOFTWARE its used by many(if not most) to get away from microsoft and thier bugs,viruses,BLOAT, ETC. i use it as its more stable less virus prone and FAST, i use retail games when availible simply because they are deny it or belive it better then OSS. I am NOT saying OSS is bad its just they are on tight budgets and cannot get to the retail quality.

Often there are Alternatives but none that really get the new high-end game smell. I play both OSS and Retail because of this i mean if it wasn't for retail(closed source) software alot of ppl wouldn't have jobs, They not only provide the consumer with a great game but many many MANY ppl with jobs, money for food, Housing, Clothing.

With out paid software where would we be? alot of geeks sitting on a sidewalk playing with a calculator. You know why? Because they don't have the money for Computers, and along with that don't have enough time to develop much of the OSS we all use.

Bottom line Freedom has nothing to do with the gammers and the users that run linux it has to do with choice and what they want to use that is true freedom as if they were limited to OSS, that my friend is not freedom its limitation

[diepruis]

i use it as its more stable less virus prone and FAST, i use retail games when availible simply because they are deny it or belive it better then OSS. I am NOT saying OSS is bad its just they are on tight budgets and cannot get to the retail quality. Often there are Alternatives but none that really get the new high-end game smell. I play both OSS and Retail because of this i mean if it wasn't for retail(closed source) software

Firstly, retail games may have better graphics etc. than freeware games but that does not make them neccessarily better. I've been playing ADOM for 5 years now. No other retail game has come close.

Secondly, you are confusing retail, freeware, open and closed source. I have no problem with retail games, I think the industry has opened doors for people like me to have interesting, fun jobs. But, retail does not mean closed source. What I would like is open source retail games. If you want to run WarCraft IV on your favourite Linux distro then go right ahead, just compile the source. That is freedom. Free as in freedom of speach not as in free bear, no?

I for one would buy even more games if this was the model, unfortunately it's not and we're forced to use Windows.

[goobers]

why do gamers need a free operating system to run games that do not respect ones freedom?

I don't think gamers "need" a free operating system to play games, its a matter of preference. If someone prefers Ubuntu, why should they be forced only to play open source games?

Also, I wouldn't say a closed source game doesn't respect freedom, they're closed source so that the company that made it can make money, and the fact that a native linux port doesn't exist doesn't mean the company doesn't respect the freedom of someone playing, it is usually for financial reasons- i.e. they don't think they would make back the money it would cost to develop a linux port.

[vem0m]

Firstly, retail games may have better graphics etc. than freeware games but that does not make them neccessarily better. I've been playing ADOM for 5 years now. No other retail game has come close.

Secondly, you are confusing retail, freeware, open and closed source. I have no problem with retail games, I think the industry has opened doors for people like me to have interesting, fun jobs. But, retail does not mean closed source. What I would like is open source retail games. If you want to run WarCraft IV on your favourite Linux distro then go right ahead, just compile the source. That is freedom. Free as in freedom of speach not as in free bear, no?

I for one would buy even more games if this was the model, unfortunately it's not and we're forced to use Windows.

see u are confused and wrong if the sources for those games were open it would be stolen by other companies and users, Not only explioted and bug found and used against the users, but also they wouldn't make any money for a future games. Simply because thier prior got stolen, Abused, and Gennerally ripped off. Is that freedom? no that is anarchy they close the source for a reason that reson being to be able to hire ppl and make better games.

[jdodson]

I don't think gamers "need" a free operating system to play games, its a matter of preference. If someone prefers Ubuntu, why should they be forced only to play open source games?

I, as well as Ubuntu are not forcing people to do anything. My question was not an attempt at forcing, just a question of basically "whats the point?"

Also, I wouldn't say a closed source game doesn't respect freedom, they're closed source so that the company that made it can make money, and the fact that a native linux port doesn't exist doesn't mean the company doesn't respect the freedom of someone playing, it is usually for financial reasons- i.e. they don't think they would make back the money it would cost to develop a linux port.

My company makes plenty of money writing free software. I am a software engineer who gets paid to write that software.

Games are in a different market to be sure, but free software != no money made. T

[jdodson]

ok u just opened up a world of conflicting views in your post i play non free games as no linux is not representing FREE SOFTWARE its used by many(if not most) to get away from microsoft and thier bugs,viruses,BLOAT, ETC. i use it as its more stable less virus prone and FAST, i use retail games when availible simply because they are deny it or belive it better then OSS. I am NOT saying OSS is bad its just they are on tight budgets and cannot get to the retail quality.

Your arguing a point I did not make. I never said commercial games were not, by and large, better quality than free software games.

And opening a can of worms does not have to happen, it takes you to react, I was merly posing a question.

Often there are Alternatives but none that really get the new high-end game smell. I play both OSS and Retail because of this i mean if it wasn't for retail(closed source) software alot of ppl wouldn't have jobs, They not only provide the consumer with a great game but many many MANY ppl with jobs, money for food, Housing, Clothing.

I make money writing free software, I understand games are a different market, but it could be done.

With out paid software where would we be? alot of geeks sitting on a sidewalk playing with a calculator. You know why? Because they don't have the money for Computers, and along with that don't have enough time to develop much of the OSS we all use.

Thats silly. People make lots of money off free software, I being one who does.

Bottom line Freedom has nothing to do with the gammers and the users that run linux it has to do with choice and what they want to use that is true freedom as if they were limited to OSS, that my friend is not freedom its limitation

Freedom has something to do with some gamers, namely myself, so don't speak for all of us.

And seriously, I never said I was going to limit anyone, nor did I say people should be limited.

I just asked what the point was in using a free software OS when you run non-free stuff?

[jdodson]

see u are confused and wrong if the sources for those games were open it would be stolen by other companies and users,

Lets stray away from personal attacks ok?

GPL software has to be respected in terms of the four software freedoms. I would harly call people exercising a right, "theft." Its a right granted under the GPL.

Is the Quake source "stolen" because Nexuiz used it as the engine? No way, its a right given to Nexuiz under the GPL release of the Quake source.

Not only explioted and bug found and used against the users, but also they wouldn't make any money for a future games.

I think is is a bad point. After the Quake3 source was released, a few bugs were fixed by the Icculus Quake 3 team, those changes were patched back into Quake 3 and released by ID when there had not been a point Quake 3 release in sometime.

Sounds like a good thing to me, we all benefit from the communal aspect of the GPL.

Simply because thier prior got stolen, Abused, and Gennerally ripped off. Is that freedom? no that is anarchy they close the source for a reason that reson being to be able to hire ppl and make better games.

Free software is not anarchy, to suggest otherwise means you might not understand what you are talking about in terms of free software.

[vem0m]

but no one would make enough in the gaming market making free games the quality would be greatly reduced and not worht looking at and as for u just asking

I just asked what the point was in using a free software OS when you run non-free stuff?

i gave u loads of reasons why we use linux and why we play those games i don't really see a point in this topic so as of right now this will be the last i say

u are thinking of stuff that would only exist in a world of peace in which this is not theft happens wheater in GPL or not also quake 3 was a BAD example as that was released after the products life cycle making the representation void of what would happen as i said on a current still sold and supported game