Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Please Do Not Harass Blizzard 119

Posted by emmett from the voice-of-reason dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Please Do Not Harass Blizzard More

Please Do Not Harass Blizzard

Comments Filter:
  • ...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.
  • It used to be that companies would refuse to provide Linux ports of software because they didn't think there was any demand. So we started writing to them to let them know that the market was out there. Now that there's a market, they're still not supporting it, and telling us to shut up.

    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 [lokigames.com]
  • 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...)
  • 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.

  • 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 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
  • 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. :)
    ----
  • My gripe with blizzard is that they had a vaporware Mac port of Starcraft for about half a year. It was listed in catalogs in time for cristmas and didn't show up unitl after it was irrelevant because all my Windoze using friends had allready gotten bored of it. And the primary attraction of such a game is the network play, sooo....


    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.

  • 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.

  • Well, I think that sort of protocol information gleaned from such practices would also be useful if someone were to program an IP Masquerading module to properly handle Blizzard's non-firewall friendly gaming systems.

    Cheating doesn't have to be the only reason you think of.

  • 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.

    --
  • 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.
  • SOME discs ship with both Win 32 and Linux versions. Some discs ship with Win 32 and Mac version. Generally, those are counted as just Win32 sales. In that case, let the company know. But usually, just filling out the registration card will give them all the info they need.
  • 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 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.
  • 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 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 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

    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 [starshiptitanic.com] entitled "Why Isn't Starship Titanic on the Macintosh?" [starshiptitanic.com] 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 [ftp.gmd.de] (per Douglas Adams' website [douglasadams.com]). Maybe there's even a Linux version.

    Dang! 100,000 unfiltered terahertz lip-flappers on /. -- 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.

  • Even *polite* letters may be counterproductive! (Score:3)

    by orpheus ( 14534 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @06:24AM (#1289369)
    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!

    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 /.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.

  • ...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).

    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 ;) text explaining:

    - 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...
  • 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!
  • 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".
  • 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!!!

    And second if a start up was dumb enough not to the the .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*
  • > 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
  • 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.

  • Better reason to flame Blizzard: Rev.Dom.Hijacking (Score:4)

    by WilliamX ( 22300 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @03:41AM (#1289379)
    Blizzard sent a letter [dnspolicy.net] this week demanding the owner of blizzard.net turn over the domain to them or face legal action.
  • Well ok then! I haven't taken a look at linuxgames.com recently, but hows about a slashdot or linuxgames section for "(games|cool stuff) we want to see on linux" petitions? After all, as a pillar of the linux community, /. would be an ideal venue for hosting something like this, or at least co-hosting or linking to something like this, no?
    ----
    Dave
    Purity Of Essence
  • 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".

  • Actually, when I wrote to them (once, and 2 paragraphs of thought out material) I mentioned that I have moved away from windows and did not anticipate buying any windows games in the future. I mentioned that in the past I had bought their games (mentioned each) and that it was profitable to hit a group with such "brand loyalty".

    I cannot believe the domain hijacking thing above...I need to process it and come to terms with the fact that Blizzard is not nearly as holy as I would have believed. Can't anyone just buy a domain anymore? It's not the original buyers fault that blizzard (a computer-oriented company, and hardly lacking in net saavy) coul;dn't get on the ball and buy up their own domains? sheesh.
  • 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.

  • the statement in the article was:

    I think it's worthwhile to let vendors know I bought their product because they support Linux.

    Vendor can mean any vendor. Although it is fairly cut and dry in the case of buying a Linux version of a game, what about hardware (I recently bought a new video card, and went for the Matrox G400, specifically because of Matrox being open with their specs, and giving money towards the development of X drivers for their cards (the fact that it's a great card helped too, of course - I wouldn't buy crap just because the company supported the free software movement;)), or what about choosing one windoze product over another because of the company being Linux-friendly?

    Also, it helps to remind the company that supporting Linux gains a lot of kudos from the community ;)
    --

  • Anyone who sends correspondence to Blizzard should be sure to mention how many of their previous (Windows) games they've bought...

    The problem with this is that this confirms you are existing customer, presumably with a dual-boot machine (or VMWare). If the company where to do a Linux port, then they'd be losing money on you, since because you would have bought the game anyway, the money spent on the port would have been wasted.

    If you do send a mail like this, be sure to state very firmly you do not intend buying any more of their games, until they support Linux, then they might listen.
    --

  • 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 [neverwinternights.com] 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.


  • 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.
  • erm. my opinion of blizzard has changed significantly in the last ten seconds. geez us key reist... blizzard, stooping to the level of the etoys goons? wtf. i suppose that just goes to show ya not to assume stuff about companies just because they happen to make spiffy games.

    this is an ascension war! read the vinge paper and gnash your teeth or whatever, but don't just sit on your ass...

  • 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...
  • I'm not totally convinced. Right now, Loki is in a position where it's benificial for Blizzard (and others) to go through them for a port, because other companies just don't have the Linux developer power to do it. However, this could change--I guess it depends on how Loki is getting their money. I assume they get paid per unit of software sold (as opposed to a lump sum for doing the port). 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.

    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...
  • As someone who works at a game company and reads the incoming mail, I see this from the opposite side of most slashdotters. As soon as any game is announced, there's an inevitable group of mail that's always received:

    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.
  • hehe.. [red face] linuxport.members.easyspace.com
  • 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.
  • This is a troll, not the real JonKatz, please moderate it down, etc., etc. God these wannabes are getting tedious. Hell, I could be encouraging them just by making even this brief, half-hearted reply.

    Walt
  • >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.
  • "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.
  • Well lets be honest here I can't be pleased, hate paying for everything (some yes but not everything) and I'm as self righteous as it gets.

    But frankly thats operating system independant. I'm just that way period. So are a lot of people.

    I give the companies flak no matter what OS the game runs on if the game deserves flak (IMO). That is part of what they get to deal with being a company. However the payoff for pasting a smile on their faces and being accomadating on a few fronts has the potential to be big.

    The trick is that they have to see success before they produce stuff for the OS. That is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. I think that they just have to bite the bullet and write off the cost as market expansion and do it for a dozen or so releases. If all of them bomb and don't break even then they can honestly say the OS can't support their market.
  • I'm sorry, but I have to side with Blizzard on this one. If you look at blizzard.net [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
  • I was actually trying to be helpful, pointing out a cool game which did (yes, after quite a long time differential vs. Windows) come out for the Mac.

    Oh well. Too bad I was moderarted down -- I thought that given the cutesy HHGG reference at the end of the post, I had made it clear that I wasn't ragging on orpheus and just being helpful.
  • 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.
    --
  • Thank you for making this point - I agree and was thinking the same thing.

    BTW:

    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.

    I understand the Matrox is the best-supported card for Linux. I will be deciding my next accelerator purchase based on its Linux support :)

  • 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.
  • I gotta get in on this.

    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.
    ---
  • So what if they don't do it? Are the guilty of "Vaporware"? You linux zealots claim that travesty against MS all the time!
  • Yes, I have gone there (your link is broken, by the way; here's one that works: blizzard.net [blizzard.net]). I don't see anything wrong with it. They certainly aren't sullying the good name of blizzard.anybody.

    Blizzard.net [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.

  • I think he said to buy the Linux games out there. If companies like Loki are successful then that will inspire companies to go for a Linux port. Just buying the Windows version may defeat our cause becuase then they won't have to bother becuase we are buying anyway. I have bought SBII and RRT from Loki. Rather great stuff.

  • 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.

    I think he means by mailbombing the tons of emails they are getting from linux people.

    They have a certain number of people who they employ to process and answer mail. So if they get flooded it detracts from their other capabilities and costs them money-- the opposite of what we want for Loki.

    A lesser problem is that we don't want to end up with the reputation of Amiga users. They were pushy, opinionated and loud. Businesses sometimes didn't support Amiga because they didn't want to deal with that kind of irate customer. So before you fire off an angry or critical email at a software company you overall like, try to remember a time when you might have been working behind a cash register, and how you felt dealing with irate or just loud customers.

    The nice thing about Open Source for a business is that their customers happily improve their products for them, strengthening stability, improving the interface, and adding features. So we're the best customers in the industry, and should stay that way.

    I do want (desperately) to run StarCraft on my Linux box, so I suggest heavy use of Web petitions to show them in a less bandwidth hungry manner our longing for combat.

  • Agreed. Obviously they know we want the ports, hence the letter. But a better track I would think would be to "Be nice" and not flame your customers by insinuating that anyone who may have sent a letter was part of a "Mailbomb" campaign.

    Reminds me a little of a site I go to from time to time. It's got good threads and gerneally good information, but from time to time the powers that be seem to get tired of the whining and flame a little.

    Maybe thats whats happening here. Guess everyone is allowed a little leeway.

  • 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 [www.blizzard]?

    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..."
  • 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..."
  • 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..."
  • 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 usually see... 16-20 fps difference :-( Mebe I just have a baroke G400. I read benchmarks before I posted this so I was not just rambling and its just not up to par. and I dont *want* a Voodoo because for one I use windows and the G400 is far better for regular 2d displays and In doze on my 19" monitor I can crank the resolution way up and the refresh way up and the voodoo just could not compete.. I like my g400, I just wish there were ZERO gap between the two.. :-( JA
  • 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?
  • I think you're right here. I just want to add that it is also very important to not only ask for a port, but also give good, positive response when they actually do it. This is very easy, just send them a little message stating that you want to thank them for the good port and that they should keep releasing for linux.
  • If you inserted Linux everywhere you said Mac then your statement would have gotten you bombed into the stone age. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play games on your favorite system. If enough people want the same thing and the developer figures it out then you will see it.

    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.

  • 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.
  • Did you read my whole comment? no shit you could just make copies, Im talking about using "battle.net" type servers for multi-player internet based gaming. you have to got through blizzard to play over the internet.
  • It's already been done. Diablo 2 is going to be ruined, just like Diablo 1, from all the trainers.
  • 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.
  • That's no one's fault but the Mac owners'. If you own a Mac and play games on it, you MUST accept that the games will arrive several months later than their Windows counterparts (if they arrive at all). This is just the way it is - it is not Blizzard's or anyone else's fault (other than Apple, possibly). You might point to Q3 or UT - but they are the exception, not the rule.
  • Yep - Companies have a right to protect their trademarks.
  • Ah, but in some cases both ports(MS/Linux)come in the same package....
  • That is the first thing that came across my mind as well. If Linux is "the next big thing", there is the potential to make a lot of cash. It is a reasonable argument that Loki is trying to protect their own interests.
  • Companies are not always quick to realize what is going on [in the industry] around them. I am merely suggesting that Loki is trying to hold onto a dream (a bit longer). I do not believe for one second that Loki has the power to harness magic in their favor.
  • You sir, are a freedom loving idiot. I think that the company should squish him like a bug and then say "too bad". This is their domain, they own the word Blizzard. Get a clue - Hippie.
  • From a hardware vendor (Sun, 6 Feb 2000):

    >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. // Slashdot is a cigarette break for nonsmokers.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close