Slashdot Mirror
Please Do Not Harass Blizzard
Saber Taylor writes "Loki President, Scott Draeker, issued a statement saying that e-mail floods to game companies asking for Linux ports may be counterproductive. Reasonable, although I think it's worthwhile to let vendors know I bought their product because they support Linux."
They're not open-source!
So why run them?
GNU BABY!
You don't have to inform a company that you bought the linux version of thier product.
They keep track of their sales... They know how many linux versions are sold, and can figure out if porting to linux is justifiable..
---
people seem to be getting stupider all the time
Of course, it all makes perfect sense. Why would they want MORE customers? Every company wants to sell as little of its product as possible. Why listen to customer's requests?
And this proves it!
Hey mods, waste your 5 points on me!
Due to your post, we decided to try the ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters experiment. Sadly, we only had one monkey. The ten thousand typewriters were thrown at it until it died.
And how is loki going to magically keep the information of the success of games on Linux from the rest of the game industry? It's not like Loki can (again magically) create a stranglehold on a market with relatively few barriers to entry.
the o-fishel QuakeIIIarena tin showed up just this week (after pre ordering in Dec asap) complete w/ S.u.S.E. un-timed trial version (can't wait to install my first suse experience). Oddly those tins look a little like the Oreo cookie tins in the grocery... hmmm. Howard Roarke
And if they are truly getting mailbombed, then take that up with the sender's ISP. But don't tell the linux community to stop asking for a linux port.
I purchased Unreal Tournament and use it only on Windows. Why should I suffer under Linux? For a political goal to defeat Microsoft! Linux games will have to be as good (if not better) for me to switch.
PS: How many of you have purchased the Linux copy of any game?
I invested in Red Hat and with my sensible income therein purchased all Linux games thus far . . .
Name one game that functions completely and properly under W(h)INE.
When will it get through your skulls? There is no linux games market yet. And there won't be at least until XFree4.0 demonstrates real hardware accelerated 3d support. Bliz can't justify the expense of a linux port just because a ridiculously small share of their market doesn't want to run the platform they chose to write to.
At one point people were all in a huff about domain speculation, but lately that has changed... I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it seems everyone is selling out nowadays. But for people to actually say blizzard.net is legitimate, you've got to be shitting me.
Has anyone bothered to check the pop up menu for available domains? There must be 150-200 in there.
And all this guy is offering is email and web forwarding... Mind you forwarding, not actual addresses or web space. If that isn't a waste I don't know what is... Sure this isn't quite as bad as going out and buying some politician's or athelete's name, but it is pretty close.
Now I am not saying I think Blizzard (the game company) is right in threatening a lawsuit. But I sure as hell don't think this blizzard.net person deserves defending.
But go on and support this guy, in his "legitimate" business endeavor. I just won't be surprised when in 10 years I'll will be working for some company with a domain "ajfj32lksa.com", and be shelling out 15 bucks a person to someone else to buy email and web forwarding...
And as far as selling domains go...
In my opinion an unused domain should never be sold for more than 75$. If it is, then someone is ripping someone else off.
i like your mom i like your mom i want to marry her and be your dad i like your mom i like your mom
They already did. They have a newsgroup server at news://news.lokigames.com/loki.requests
I think Blizzard is completely justified. This is a case of a "domain speculator" trying to make money off of someone else's name. I think his canned lawyer response just shows he knew he was in a sticky position and prepared in advance. If he was selling pictures of snowstorms I'm sure Blizzard wouldn't sue, but most of the value for his use comes from the association with Blizzard. Thus, they are just protecting their name, which I have no problem with.
Well, frankly I never had any problems with running StarCraft under WINE. BTW since it runs under WINE couldn't Blizzard just supply linux binaries linked with it at a minimal effort, and what would be the gain?
...I can assure you that, yes, they do listen. However, they've gotten the impression that Linux users can't be pleased, don't want to pay for anything, and are self-righteous. I've tried to do advocacy at that level, which usually helps. But yes, petitions and unified, *polite* fronts are the best way to do it - individuals create too much of an impression of whining for whining's sake.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
If Blizzard wants to survive the next few years, it had better start listening to the market.
Loki's created a newsgroup precisely for this purpose:
news://news.lokigames.com/loki.request
:wq
When Loki was getting started, Scott Draeker asked for e-mail from the community stating what games they (we) wanted to see ported. I'm sure the folks at Loki would still be glad to hear from people with suggestions.
(Of course, don't flood Loki, and be nice about it - Loki is a friend to the Linux community, IMO...)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
As far as the comment you quote about Linux being nonstandard, the only reason it's nonstandard is because to them, Windows is the standard. Too bad the standard is so poor.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
In penance, let me offer the following: While I don't know if formal Mac versions were released for any of his previous Infocom/Activision games, free/shareware interpreters for many platforms are available
I played Douglas Adams's infocom games Bureaucracy and Hitchhikers' Guide on a Mac in the mid-1980s. I don't know how much of a lag this was behind other platforms, but it can't have been much, because the Mac was a pretty new platform at the time. There was surely no question of "bankrupting the company."
I'm not a smorgasbord.
I think rather then mailing blizzard .. mail companies like loki requesting. They can go to blizzard and using the feedback from linux users to our advantage rather then blizzard starting to delete messages coz they say "We want linux ports"
bain
Sanity is a majority vote.
Now, Blizzard's case is slightly stronger (in my VERY nonexperienced eyes) because "Blizzard" isn't a typical last name,
:)
No, it's not a last name... it's just an english word. God forbid that someone register a domain with a standard english word, eh? This is no different than veronica.com and ajax.org - if somebody takes your "word" first well - too bad. Register blizzardgames.net and get over it.
So there.
----
That's my Blizzard bitterness. Don't buy it until it's IN STOCK. And not from them, ever again.
Sorry if you think this is a troll or something, it had to be said.
Start Running Better Polls
maybe Loki Games can just implement some sort of suggestion forum, where gamers can post which titles they'd like to see ported. I know that those forums already exist, but since Loki is the prime gaming company for Linux, it would make sense having something like that.
Do you see a legitimate reason for the existence of this domain. It is there for one thing. To make money off poeple who think it would be cool to have an email address that looks like someone from Blizzard ent. Blizzard (whether you like suing or not) has a legitimate case here, they have the right to protect their good name.
Oh come on! I did check the site, and there is no reference to Blizzard Entertainment at all.
Blizzard Entertainment isn't the only blizzard around, I can think of at least two others: a Dairy Queen shake, and originally the term for a snow storm. How do you know what blizzard.net might be in reference to? I didn't see any reference to Oreo cookies in ice cream, but by your argument, Dairy Queen should sue the guy too.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no love for domain speculators (I've had to deal with them before). But in this case I think Russ is in the clear. "Blizzard" is a common word, and the trademark infringement case has got to have more teeth to it than that.
Did you catch how he said "buy the games that are out there"? Anyone who sends correspondence to Blizzard should be sure to mention how many of their previous (Windows) games they've bought... this is basic "vote with your wallet". They're saying up front that they care about existing customers more than Linux ranters that haven't spent a dime.
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
The best way to go about convincing companies to port games is probably to make petitions. Somebody will make a list of all the people who want a game ported, then the list can be emailed to the company. The company won't feel like they are being harrased because they are only recieving one email, and at the same time they can see that there is a demand for the port.
I've seen several petitions like this for linux ports around the net. Sometimes multiple sites have petitions for the same game. It might be more productive to have a central site for generating petitions. If I was a company I would rather recieve one petition with thousands of names, than 10 petitions with hundreds of names.
3D is fine under linux, at least, I see no reason why XFree86 4.0 will make a big difference at all. Maybe by that time nvidia will have made better drivers for their cards, but current 3d drivers for matrox, ati, and 3dfx cards will have matured. Thats to be expected, with any drivers, even on windows, XF4 or not.
Besides, if they do Mac ports, they might as well do a linux port.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I thought Daryll Strauss said that the dri model used in Xfree86-4.0 will surely result in slower drivers for the 3dfx cards. Not signifigantly, but just a little slower, since they supported windowing and security. No big deal, just 1-3 fps drop. With Xfree-4.0 betas, the voodoo3 drivers are about 8fps slower, which I guess will be better. This is not counting other cards, which may or may not get a performance drop. NVidia's drivers can't get any worse at least.
Also, aren't 3dfx drivers already pretty fast. About 4fps slower than windows drivers I think.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Get a voodoo. Comparable speed to windows (and don't run your mouth if your gonna complain about a 4fps difference). G400 and ATI also have comparable speed.
I don't know what is wrong with your g400. I see benchmarks were it beat out windows drivers in lower resolutions.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I too won't just buy a linux game for linux sakes. You see, I like mindless games, like first person shooters, which is why to date I have only got bought q3a.
I got the impression from Scott's message that he wanted me to buy more loki games, since those are like the only ones that will be counted as linux sales. I say get better games. Those games you ported might be ok for some other people, but the money would be in action games. And of course dear hunter (never played it, but is has money written all over it). And if you could, some RTS games.(and and and)
PS: are you really intreasted in how many slashdotters have bought a linux game. It doesn't mean dick, and won't mean dick even if a hundred slashdotters reply to say they have. So, my question is, where could I find out how much loki's games sold, especially q3a, compared to the windows version (and all that distributed linux binaries, SHAME on you:)
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I am pleased that Starship Titanic was finally released for the Mac. I must have missed the announcement. I don't follow Mac stuff that closely anymore
/. -- and I get caught out on a point that I thought I fact-checked. (*grumble*) I hope that doesn't make anyone else think twice before spending the time to fact-check.
However, my underlying point remains, even Douglas Adams had to bow to commercial pressures and favor the PC version -- though the Mac (unlike Linux) has been an established gaming market for almost 20 years!
I did a spot check before posting, and saw a page on the official Starship Titanic web site entitled "Why Isn't Starship Titanic on the Macintosh?" I hope you'll understand why my quick check of the page suggested that Starship Titanic *still* wasn't on the Mac.
Also, I was thinking 'initially released' when I wrote 'released'. Sloppy wording. Mea Culpa.
In penance, let me offer the following: While I don't know if formal Mac versions were released for any of his previous Infocom/Activision games, free/shareware interpreters for many platforms are available for free download (per Douglas Adams' website). Maybe there's even a Linux version.
Dang! 100,000 unfiltered terahertz lip-flappers on
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Face it, the commercial market for Linux versions is not at present anywhere near the market for MS OS versions. Next year or two years from now may be an entirely different story, but today -- nyet!
/.er can name 20 things that should/would have succeeded except for an early failure (premature exposure/introduction) and even the corporate resources of an Edison, IBM, etc. couldn't keep them afloat until they were ready to swim.
It could well be dnagerous to force this issue onto the developer's agenda prematurely. Yes, it's nice to keep it on the horizon, but if we pressure developers to do it *now* we're also forcing them to decide based on *current* market conditions. And frankly, in a highly competitive environment, the smart decision for most of them will be to dedicate their resources to improving their cash cow, or developing other, more lucrative projects. (Douglas Adams, the author and staunch Mactivist, never released a Mac version of his games because it would have bankrupted the company -- which would have benefited no one)
Once such an official policy is in place, it will probably delay introduction more than the current vague interest. An explicit policy is difficult to change, even if it is explicitly "Linux? Someday... but not now". The bar for the eventual entry into Linux may actually be raised by the policy
It might be safer if we maintain a steady gentle awareness of Linux in the marketplace, and wait until the hard financial facts support entry. Let's keep it as a 'concept that all the really cool companies are thinking about' instead of trying to pretend it's a commercial mandate.
Any
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
...especially when you consider the, let's say, easily irritated attitude a lot of Linux users seem to have if thing don't go exactly their way and they feel their "pet OS" is being "ignored" (and let's face it, like in most other markets, many consumers probably just pirate anyway after demanding a game for years).
;) text explaining:
My solution is simple. Instead of sending what amounts to just a lot of "me too" emails, I emailed a few Linux companies with a nice, well-typed (I hope
- What products of the company I had bought when I was still using Windows (or even earlier computer - it won't hurt if you tell them you've been a customer since 1984 [but be truthful])
- Which of their games I'd like to continue playing, in Linux
- What type of new games I'd like to see from them (with Linux support, naturally)
- That Lokigames exists and which Loki products I have bought, and that I am so far satisfied with what they delivered
The trick here is to be very polite - And also very "modest" (for lack of a better word). Let them know you'd love to see the stuff, but NEVER, ever demand or threaten! Nothing is going to put a company off like having a half-million drooling Linux lemmings at their throats, all demanding, say, Diablo 2 for Linux; "or else". The company will just decide they're better off without these annoying wanna-be-customers and continue on as they have.
Just my 0.02 eur.
It's also generally accepted that Linux freebies--like server ports--are a good thing, if only because they appease the natives.
Excuse me? Making a Linux server is far more than "appeasing the natives." Linux (and *nix/BSD) servers are, in many cases, vital to making an online game a hit. Game companies should be glad that so many *nix users want to run servers for their games, to give purchasers a place to play and thus increase the value of that company's products. Go check out server lists of some popular games, like Half-Life. You may be surprised at that number of non-Windows (non-Mac) servers. Last time I took a look at HL it was over 50%.
Vaporware is a very old problem. I don't think Microsoft dose get pinned with this one...
Instead software announcments for Linux or Windows get this...
Microsoft is pritty good at delivering what they announce.. It's usually not everything they initally clame but they do produce something eventually.
Commodore is more known for Vaporware.. they'd announce something and then not produce it. Commodore is dead... vaporware isn't what killed them but everyone.. even Microsoft.. wants to stay away from the unpopulare busness tactics of a company that didn't survive...
More often announced unreleased open source programs get pingged with the vaporware tag.. and with good reason... Many open source projects never see the light of day.
Companys like Microsoft want to be shure they can release a product before they start putting money into it. This reduces the chances of vaporware.
There are many advantages of open source software develupment but vaporware is one of the strong disadvantages...
I don't actually exist.
Blizzard, just like Etoys, is big enough to say, "screw you little guy, I want your domain name". Even though NetworkSolutions is still assing off with the matter and not releasing the etoy.com domain, Etoys has caused considerable irritation.
Blizzard is hoping to muscle the public around like a bully. Well screw 'em. They make nice cut scenes but their games are overrated. Be vocal about your disgust with Blizzard adn these tactics!
rm -rf ms/*
But you arent allowed to protect your trademark with tactics similar to the german NS party of the 1930s. Even if this guy just likes showing off his .gif collection of snowstorms, Blizzard has NO right to cut in "because they are bigger" or "have a copyright on their name".
rm -rf ms/*
as long as this guys isnt marketing x@blizzard.net with Warcraft graphics and Diablo sounds on his webpage, he can do anything he wants with it short of distributing NAMBLA picts and .img of Blizzard products. Get a clue this is the net!!!
.net along with the .com, then BillyBoy himself could buy it and use it ... IF HE WAS THERE FIRST. Remember this is the net. rm -rf microsoft*
And second if a start up was dumb enough not to the the
rm -rf ms/*
> Of course there's other things to look at like, how long will it take to do the port, quality of the end product, customer satisfaction, etc. Having never purchased a Loki product (yet), I can't say how they compare in these areas. Anyone care to comment on the quality of Loki's ports?
Really good. Better, if anything, than the original. That is to say, better than the original would be if ported by the original company that wrote it, anyway. And here's why:
Local expertise. A lot of game companies out there writing for Windows know Windows well. But they don't necessarily know a lot about other OS'es. Which means that any port they do will likely be designed from a Windows point of view, and not "play nicely" with X, the Window Managers, etc.
You can write an X program that is "X-compliant" (or whatever the term is), but isn't X-compliant, really. We've all seen them.
But Loki, having a lot of expertise in Linux/X, will likely know the tricks of the trade, the gotcha's and the little things that make for a good X program.
By all accounts (I haven't played it), the original Windows Civ:CTP wasn't all that great. However, the Loki port was really good. (I do own that one). Why? Because Linux users have a lower standard? Not really. Just that Loki knew what they were doing, and did a really good job with the port, making for a game that ran better in X than even the original did in Windows.
Definitely far better than any X port would have if done by Activision...
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone mailing a games developer asking for a Linux port and from what the Loki bloke said he actually said that "mailbombing" was a bad idea.
To my understanding mailbombing is the instance of a single user sending 100+ messages saying "Gimme Linux Port".
Sending a well thought out email message to a games developer is likely to get more attention and if you outline the rational reasons as to why they should port the game across then you might be heard. This type of behaviour cannot be considered counter-productive, at least us Linux users don't tend to call product support to ask how to install the game!!! Any company has to consider it's customers, even potential-customers.
Aside
I purchased Unreal Tournament and later downloaded the Linux install off the net. The 3D acceleration however is pretty slow under Linux mainly because the (glide) 3dfx drivers have not been optimised and won't be until XFree v4.0.0 is released, so I tend to play the game in Windows still.
"It boils down to 'Will the Linux community respect OTHER peoples' licenses and property rights as fervently as they expect theirs to be respected?'."
I'm thinking that's still a wait-and-see issue. Closed source software and business in general have always gotten a bad rap from Linux users. Loki is tolerated because they share some code, but I don't know how they'll react to a company that offers binaries only for $69.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Blizzard sent a letter this week demanding the owner of blizzard.net turn over the domain to them or face legal action.
read the above for a textbook reply to pushy lawyers.
my fav part
Since you provided a short deadline of 10 days and I will need time to provide your response to my attorney, have him review the information, discuss the matter, and provide a response, please provide an answer within 24 hours via return e-mail.
which is especially funny after he cites three court cases and a demonstated knowledge of how the domain system "works".
+&x
I don't think any good can come of an e-mail "flood", but I think it is always appropriate for a consumer to give suggestions. I believe that if someone makes a script that sends Blizzard e-mail every few seconds, that would be counterproductive. However, if every person that is interested sends one e-mail expressing their feelings on the subject, I don't see how that can be bad.
Naturally, Blizzard could ignore one million posts as easily as they could ignore one. However, if the e-mails seem to be sincere requests, it shouldn't hurt regardless of the quantity.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Yeah, you're wrong. Even if Blizzard thought that there was an enormous market for Linux games, they still have to decide what the most cost-effective method of porting the game is. If Loki can show that they can do the port at a savings to Blizzard, then Blizzard would have no reason to do it themselves. If Loki can't do a port cheaper than an in-house effort, why are they even in business?
It is definitely in Loki's best interest to show that there is a large market for Linux games. Then they can say, "See, huge market, lot's of royalties. And we just happen to have the means to port your game cheaply and efficiently."
I am not a legal person, but the suffix '.net' usually denotes a provider of network services. Unless Blizzard have evolved Warcraft into some new and startling protocol or network service, I can't see how they can claim it.
Blizzard supplies a network service via their battle.net domain. Similar to Bungie, where you have bungie.com for the corporate stuff and press releases, and bungie.net for the online gaming, I can see where a blizzard.net would make sense.
Now, I'm not saying that their efforts to scare this guy into giving up his domain makes sense, but perhaps it's one of those "protect your trademark or lose it" issues.
If the (Linux) numbers sold become very high, the original software companies are going to realize this and say "hell, we could do the port ourselves and keep all the money!". It seems to be a balancing act for Loki.
However, as the number of copies sold increases, Loki has to charge less and less to make money also. It's the same for an in-house port. "Keep all the money" doesn't make sense, because there is still of the cost of doing the port, so you never get to keep all of the money. It still comes down to, can Loki port a game for less money than an in-house development effort?
Of course there's other things to look at like, how long will it take to do the port, quality of the end product, customer satisfaction, etc. Having never purchased a Loki product (yet), I can't say how they compare in these areas. Anyone care to comment on the quality of Loki's ports?
One thing that you might start to see more and more of is a simultaneous development of games for both platforms. For instance Black Isle is developing Neverwinter Nights for PC, Linux, and Mac at the same time. Diablo II for Linux would be the killer-app that gets me to buy a Linux-only pc capable of actually playing games. A game like NWN would make it that much easier of a descision.
They actually tried to enforce the no-reverse-engineering clause of their EULA. several RE sites for starcraft were shut down.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Blizzard should be able to accept customer feedback, they make games. All of their products are subject to massive reviews and the good and bad parts are shouted across the WWW.
Look at the process of making Diablo II. Every little, tiny piece of information about the multiplayer part generates a ton of comments from people who haven't even played the game. ION Storm is making news for a game which is only late, not because anyone either likes or hates the game.
>companies get the impression that Linux users are cranky,
Really? The most cranky group of people I know of are gamers. If they love a game they will tear it apart trying to improve it (eg Quake2). Likewise if they hate it they will tear it apart for sport and pleasure (eg Tresspasser).
On the otherhand, if you really want to change Blizzard I would write (snail mail) my opinion in to them.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
this is an ascension war! read the vinge paper and gnash your teeth or whatever, but don't just sit on your ass...
-- sayke, v2.3.05
Blizzard sent a letter this week demanding the owner of blizzard.net turn over the domain to them or face legal action.
Disclaimer 1: I am NOT a lawyer. Don't even THINK about considering the following information as legal advice, as any lawyer worth his/her salt could probably find a way to weasel around what I'm about to say.
Disclaimer 2: I am, however, taking an Internet Law class this semester, and this is one of the topics we've examined.
That said, in the course of this class, we looked at a case VERY similiar to this one, which can be cited as (for you lawyer-types out there) 189 F.3d 868, or Avery Dennison Corporation v Jerry Sumpton (US Court of Appeals, 9th District).
The background of this case was as follows: Mr. Sumpton bought up a number of common surname domains (e.g. yourlastname.com) in order to resell vanity email addresses from them (e.g. jon@katz.com). Two of the last names he registered in this fashion were "Avery" and "Dennison", resulting in avery.com and dennison.com.
Anyhow, Avery Dennison (a supposedly very well-known office supply company) got pissy about it and sued to acquire the domain names from Mr. Sumpton.
The district court initially granted summary judgement in favor of Avery Dennison, and Mr. Sumpton appealed. The appelate court reversed the lower court's decision based on the fact that Avery Dennison, Inc.'s trademarked name didn't meet the "famousness" element required for trademark dilution protection (you basically have to be as well-known "Nike" or "Coke" to qualify), and also that because "Avery" and "Dennison" are common surnames and already registered by a number of non-office-supply companies.
Now, Blizzard's case is slightly stronger (in my VERY nonexperienced eyes) because "Blizzard" isn't a typical last name, and a "reasonable" person could possibly think that Blizzard the gaming company was offering this service, instead of some third party doing so.
That said, if Avery Dennison (which has been around since the 1800s) doesn't qualify as being "famous" enough to qualify for dilution protection, then I doubt a software company who's been around for far less time will either, unless a less-than-bright judge presides over the case.
Let me reiterate once again that I am not a lawyer. I'm merely posting this rather crude summary of the case because I happen to have a bit more exposure to this wrinkle of law than others might, and I wanted to give some measure of reassurance that if blizzard.net has adequate representation and a judge whose head isn't permanently buried within his/her rectum, they've got a reasonable chance of winning this one.
Why the hell Blizzard is wasting their time with this kind of crap instead of getting Diablo II finished, I'll never know...
Please note: I like Loki and would prefer that they continue doing these ports for 3 reasons. (1) they believed in Linux when other companies were ignoring it, (2) they are more experienced with doing the ports and probably can put out a better product and (3) Loki is giving value to Linux by releasing code to the community.
maybe Loki doesn't want these companies to realize how profitable Linux ports are going to become. If companies like Blizzard start doing their OWN Linux ports, Loki will loose out.
I could be totally wrong, of course...
A request to support the T&L of the GeForce.
A request to make sure the game properly supports the Athlon.
Fervent mail from Mac owners asking if there will be a Mac version.
Fervent mail from Linux users asking if there will be a Linux version.
Thing is, though, that this mail is predictable; we know what causes have their fans. It's also generally accepted that Linux freebies--like server ports--are a good thing, if only because they appease the natives. But we still all know that Linux is a totally different market than Windows, and that a Linux game would almost certainly sell 20x fewer copies. And realize that most PC games are far from selling 100,000 copies or more.
I'm making a page right now to collect petitions for various port requests. I was thinking that people could dubmit programs to make petitions for, then people could sign any (or all) petitions they want to. We could have a target date to send it to a company.
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
hehe.. [red face] linuxport.members.easyspace.com
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
a petition?
Just get everyone to put their 2c (ie 2 lines or less) in on a web page somewhere along with their email address and send ONE email to Blizzard pointing to this UNLISTED web page, and if they need to they can send mail to the individual(s).
It would be a much less spammy, and therefore more effective means of getting the point across.
He could have been speaking opposites... now what's the word for that? :/
Viewed in that light, that comment is worth a chuckle. However if it was intended as written, then he is indeed a troll of no class.
>Petitions and deluges of email can actually be >counterproductive. If hold out companies get the >impression that Linux users are cranky, that >will just delay any move they might make.
This is the impression I get of the majority of linux users in every context. Badgering already busy people leads to those people ignoring you and your cause.
To respond to the inevitable pro-linux flames:
"Yes companies should have feedback on what their users think. Its the overabundance thats a problem"
"Not every company wants to devote the time an energy to a non standard os, yes linux is non standard. I dont have any figures to support this but im willing to wager that there are more windows\mac users than there are linux users, so devoting the time and energy to linux porting if its not going to yield a profit"
Blizzard is a word. Just because someone is using it in their company name does not give them a right to the domain.
If they have a legitimate case, please state facts to back this up.
"If a new software company (we'll call them companyX in this example) started up, and made a web site to sell their software http://www.companyX.com. Now lets say Bill Gates came along and built http://www.companyX.net and all that web site did was sell email address'. YOU WOULD BE OUTRAGED"
And out of luck because you did not register the domain sooner. He may have a company under the same name operating an e-mail forwarding site. Are you trying to say that e-mail forwarding service is not a legitimate use of a domain, especially when it is a straight english word?
Take a look at the back of the box of the Warcraft 2 expansion set. Who developed it?
It wasn't Blizzard !
Cheers
He could'nt see the market if his mail server fell over it.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
"If someone was to reverse-engineer blizzard's protocol for diablo2 or starcraft it would be so that they could pirate the games"
Huh? You don't have to reverse engineer a protocol to pirate a game. Infact, I've seen a pirate copy of Starcraft that had a better installer than the original game.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
I'm sorry, but I have to side with Blizzard on this one. If you look at blizzard.net and follow some of the links on that page you will realize that the creators of that page are complete idiots. I would not be surprised if those same people are a source of spam, as well as being involved in real-world pyramid schemes. I applaud Blizzard and I hope they put these people out of business.
Is it just that the avarage corp is fairly new to the web that makes them confuse domain names like this? I mean, blizzard.com and blizzard.net are about as alike as apples.com and oranges.com. In my view there is absolutely no reason to think that people would go to blizzard.net thinking it was blizzard.com - and even if they did, they would have to be quite dim not to realize their mistake once connected to blizzard.net
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Douglas Adams, the author and staunch Mactivist, never released a Mac version of his games because it would have bankrupted the company -- which would have benefited no one.
Oh, really? Funny, there seems to be a MacOS version of Starship Titanic sitting on my bookshelf at home. I wonder where it came from?
Oh, I know. The darn cat must've set off our portable infinite improbability generator again. What a rascal!
If they'd just say, "Yes, we at Blizzard are heavily considering a Linux port for new games and/or old games" everyone would shutup.
I hope they are considering it! VMWare just takes up too much resources.
Although I can understand companies being fairly weary about jumping into the Linux market, I don't really see flooding them with e-mails saying that you want "game x ported to Linux" as such a bad thing...
Surely, having a whole bunch of difficult-to-please-game enthusiasts is much better than having no one there at all. I think it's good that users give these companies a yell that the market is there if they're wiulling to take some risks.
A perceived problem of Linux might be that the users may seem a little too demanding... like some companies may be scared of going anywhere near open-sourced software for example.... though i've no idea- i'm just speculating
Although I can understand companies being fairly weary about jumping into the Linux market, I don't really see flooding them with e-mails saying that you want "game x ported to Linux" as such a bad thing...
Surely, having a whole bunch of difficult-to-please-game enthusiasts is much better than having no one there at all. I think it's good that users give these companies a yell that the market is there if they're willing to take some risks. Surely the best thing to do would be just writing them enquiring about what their stance on porting to linux and politely encourage them to do so. Pretty soon, tehy'll get the message.
A perceived problem of Linux might be that the users may seem a little too demanding... like some companies may be scared of going anywhere near open-sourced software for example.... though i've no idea- i'm just speculating
It sounds so sensible to 'wait and see'.
The problem with that is the longer one waits,
the more opportunity given to someone else.
If company A doesn't want to work with system X
(or Y..etc), then that leave it wide open for
company B, doesn't it?
Badgering, demanding, mailbombing, threatening
are of course counterproductive. Requesting,
calmly should not be countrproductive. Mention
of money spent (or not spent) is also an attention
grabber.
If Blizzard doesn't care to fiddle with Linux or
such, that's their decision. Company B, did you
hear that? Time to take Company A's place from
them, with their blessing.
--
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
I disagree that blizzard.net is offering a service that interferes with blizzard.com. They provide email and web forwarding, which can never be confused with games.
In my opinion an unused domain should never be sold for more than 75$. If it is, then someone is ripping someone else off.
It is not ripping someone off; it is capitalism. It is smart business to look for potentially valuable assets on the web in the form of domain names. If I read the Wall Street Journal and notice that Company A and Company B are merging and I predict and register the resulting company's desired domain before they do, it is a legitimate move and I deserve to be paid a *lot* more than $75 for the insight.
(How's that for a run-on sentence?)
Blizzard.net was registered 14 months before this became an issue. Even if the website was unused it wouldn't matter. Maybe he just wants a cool domain name and that is fine until he starts trying to draw or drive business away from blizzard.com.
If I'm not interested in any of the games which have already been ported, I probably won't buy them anyway just so the game companies can see an "established market". However, that doesn't mean that there aren't games that that I would buy if a Linux port were available.
---
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
Blizzard.net certainly do seem to be trying to make money, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This looks neither offensive nor immoral, nor even fattening. I see no reason why any company named blizzard could legitimately object to this use of this name. It doesn't interfere with their business, won't confuse customers, and won't defame them.
This seems to me to be another case of greedy suits run amuk. I do see your point about Microsoft. If Bill Gates was trying to screw up a small software house by setting up a similar domain name, we would certainly be outraged, but that isn't the case here. We would also be outraged if Miserysoft tried to hijack the domain name Microsoft.net, run by a harmless provider of email services. That seems to be a closer parallel to this case, so far.
Does anyone know any hard facts about this? Please let us know.
See what I've been reading.
First of all, I am one if the biggest proponents of the OSS/GNU movement, but you people need to look beyond the words "Blizzard" & "Lawsuit" and see the real issue here. Have you actualy gone to blizzard.net?
Do you see a legitimate reason for the existence of this domain. It is there for one thing. To make money off poeple who think it would be cool to have an email address that looks like someone from Blizzard ent. Blizzard (whether you like suing or not) has a legitimate case here, they have the right to protect their good name.
One more thing and then I'll close: If a new software company (we'll call them companyX in this example) started up, and made a web site to sell their software http://www.companyX.com. Now lets say Bill Gates came along and built http://www.companyX.net and all that web site did was sell email address'. YOU WOULD BE OUTRAGED. But since it's a company going after a guy, your pissed at the company.
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
That wasn't my point, My point was that myname@blizzard.net looks so much like myname@blizzard.com that there are some people who would love to have an email address like that so they can look like Blizzard employees. That is all my point is.
Adversley I will say that since the website IS NOT being used to slander Blizzard Ent., they are out of line suing over it, I would think it would be more agreeable if they simply asked to buy it. I agree that having a common English word as your company name does not give you exclusive rights to the name.
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
After having a chance to look at more detailed information on the case, I would like to say that Blizzard is in the wrong here. I was thinking (I am not sure why) that this guys motivation was to sell email address' that look like they are from Blizzard Ent. I have decided that Corporations are taking there protected status way too far and I'm sick of it. I hope we can get Blizzard to drop the case and reimburse any fees their careless actions may have accrued for this gentleman.
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
People say this and then just move on to ignore it by continually asking for a game port. I will just wait for Xfree4. my Nividia Drivers SUCK. I
:-(
sure wish QIII would run faster.
Blah blah blah.
What kind of message does that send?
Okay now take into consideration the actual size of the *nix desktop gaming market.
Its NOT that big yet people are seriously stressing this stuff.
And the system is not even ready to cope with a full blown Game yet.
Even ID Software hacking drivers and other fun things like mad cannot manage the speed of a windows game..
Id play every game I owned and I would buy every game for Linux that was good.
But not until it can compete with that sucky operating system named after a piece of glass.
I dont have a super buff PC and Q3 is playable with my G400 in doze but just a little to slow in Linux. I even bought the Linux port of QuakeIII...
Dont put pressure on the markets unless it can compete? Please..... be patient. It takes time to overthrow a giant.
I don't agree with the term email flooding here. As is said already it is good to let the producers of games (and for that matter other software) know that we appreciate their efforts in porting to different platforms (not necessarily Linux). But this shouldn't result in flooding now should it? If someone uses a port for a game and thinks it is great work why shouldn't he or she let the producers know that. If I were a producer of software I would welcome any replies (bad or good) to my efforts. Why should other people feel otherwise?
Go back to playing on your Win box. Someday it could be possible that it will be in the minority and you will be waiting monthes to play games that everyone else on Linux/BeOS/Mac/etc. are done and on to the next generation of games. I play on Windows but I also play on Linux as much as possible. Unreal Tournament is playing fine in Linux on my Athlon.
I also have spent many years working for a company that provides shrink-wrap business productivity apps for Dos/Win and all major Unix OSs. I realize that business apps are a different market than games, but some of the issues that were discussed by my company while contemplating a Linux port of our software might be enlightening to the Linux community.
The issues raised are not necessarily MY issues but the issues raised within the company, and I pass this along to (hopefully) provide insight.
First, on the topic of e-mail requests for ports. We learned (the hard way) to deal with requests in one of two ways. Mail that included a request to be notified if we did a port to OS 'X' were saved as legitimate (read:potential paying customer) requests. And if the request offered a contact name/number for further info, that was even better. (yes, some companies actually DO ask their customers what they want instead of telling them what they need!) However, if there was no request for notification, the request was discarded as a Hardware and/or OS 'evangelist' request. It was assumed these people were more intested in selling THEIR products than in buying ours; as in "Look! You can get XYZ software for our systems! Buy MY Hardware/OS!". And yes, the 'tone' of the requests made a difference. Like it or not, Cranky Requests==Cranky Customers==Cranky Tech Support calls. We actually identified (or rather, they identified themselves) certain 'business types' that it was not cost-effective to sell to, because they absolutely refused to RTFM, among other things. Doing business with them was just NOT a pleasant experience and their money wasn't worth the hassle. We purposely avoided these types in our marketing.
A development issue that was unique to Linux was Future Product Development. We could go to HP or SUN or whoever and ask them what their plan was for future OS changes/enhancements 1 or 3 or 5 years down the road. While the quality of the answers we got varied, at least we had some idea what they were thinking and where they were going. To get 'equivalent' information on Linux would have required an additional investment in manpower on my company's part to stay on top of where Linux was going. This was not a slam on Linux; just an acknowledgement that Linux was a slightly different kind of animal, and our development/maintenance costs would therefor be slightly higher than for a 'commercial' Unix variant.
Another concern was whether people who had paid 'nothing' for their OS would be willing to pay $XXX dollars for an app, or would they just hack it and rip us off. For better or worse, the decision was (and still is) to take a 'wait and see' attitude to see how other Commercial software vendors fare in the Linux market. [I know of other app vendors that are taking the same position. It boils down to 'Will the Linux community respect OTHER peoples' licenses and property rights as fervently as they expect theirs to be respected?'. It's almost as if their is an expectation of LESS software cracking and stealing on Linux than on any other platform before Commercial app vendors will 'trust' the Linux community.]
Documentation of the OS was another issue. It's hard to tell someone to RTFM if their is no FM. This may not be fair, but it was decided that we had to build in extra revenue in our pricing structure to cover our extra Tech Support costs for cases where the OS documentation was unclear/incomplete/obsolete, relative to other Unix variants.
Ironically, we have Linux on a few of our internal systems, even though we don't currently support our products on it. It's one thing for US to recognize a good thing for our own use; it's quite another to have enough OTHER people able to see the same thing to create a viable Commercial app market.
How come we haven't seen anything yet about them trying to hijack battle.com or something of that nature? i mean they own Battle.net and i think people would be pretty likely to try and type in battle.com (for those that don't really know the difference and think everything is a .com) but they haven't tried anything to my knowledge of getting that domain (which is actually a pointer to some company called "BookMarksPlus")
whatcha think?
BTW, i agree that they should be more worried about getting Diablo II out fairly soon instead of such trivial things as domain names they don't need.. Hell they have the important one..
Hope it generates a 'blizzard' of faxes !
I am not a legal person, but the suffix '.net' usually denotes a provider of network services. Unless Blizzard have evolved Warcraft into some new and startling protocol or network service, I can't see how they can claim it.
This could be potentially ludicrous. If it turns out that a community college, for the sake of argument called 'Blizzard College', (because they are the community college in a place called Blizzard !) had the domain name 'blizzard.edu', could they get stomped on as well ? Or a world-wide charitable trust, doing scientific studies on blizzards ('blizzard.org')?
This is a serious issue. This is not cyber-squatting. It is a corporate bid for 'cyberlebensraum'. I hope that it fails.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Unless blizzard.net are in the same business as blizzard.com, there's no conflict of trademark. That's the stupid thing about all these "trademark needs to be protected" law suits - they don't need to be protected if the two parties are in different lines of business. Since blizzard.net dorsn't seem to be a PC games company, I don't see how blizzard.com can claim a trademark infringement.
If someone was to reverse-engineer blizzard's protocol for diablo2 or starcraft it would be so that they could pirate the games and start there own battle.net servers.
If you want to play on battle.net you need an ID# so you need to buy the game. You would get kicked off the severs if you are sharing the ID# with your friends
There is nothing wrong with Blizzard wanting to make money on their games.
Open source is cool for alot of things, but come on, not all developer were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Some of us have families to feed.
First rule of game marketing... NEVER even HINT at something that may not happen. If Blizzard did issue a statement saying "We are considering porting Diablo 2 to Linux", and then it didn't happen, regardless of what reasons they gave everyone here would be crying for a boycott.
Because it's an issue of economics. They would probably sell a few Linux copies if such a version was released. But would it be enough to offset the expense of developing a Linux port? Also, you have to consider that many people would go ahead and buy the Win version and run it in WINE if a Linux port was not made available.
Yep - Companies have a right to protect their trademarks.
From a hardware vendor (Sun, 6 Feb 2000):
// Slashdot is a cigarette break for nonsmokers.
>Thanks for the feedback.It's good to
>know that people are using the linux
>drivers that we put extra effort into.
Also, I'd like to point out that linux servers might not be as visible if you're browsing the corporate website on a different nonlinux computer.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.