If they then go add additional features like wine integration to that tool to make it overlap more with Heroic is something we're all assuming, but not actually a given.
And what of it? Every time a for profit company uses open source they'll either create a closed fork, and if they can't they'll create closed source modules for it.
I'm not saying it's bad to wish for companies to support FOSS, I'm just saying it's an unrealistic expectation to have.
The arguments are tired, the word serves us well. They insist, yes, and forever remain hopeful that This Might Be the Year. Meanwhile, the reality exists for plenty already.
There's definitely a desire for an appliance/console like experience where all the complexity is hidden behind install/play buttons, and steam has got most of the way there. As protondb shows that can't go all the way and tweaking is needed owing to the shifting PC compatibility in general and running software from one OS on a different one, it's the nature of the beast. Personally pushing towards monoculture on an open platform needs to be tempered, and there's a lot of debate previously for other places where that's relevant.
I think there are several segments that want one true way (their way).
If you use Linux like MacOS and only run static binaries and containerized programs via things like flatpak everything is fine.
It's totally possible to treat the distro simply as a thin base layer and get everything else from flatpak and the various container hubs. It does work great.
They're entirely welcome to do this, I just think there's room for more opportunity with combined/open effort. Idealistic? Sure.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that doing nothing remains an option.
Cheapshot: Good Old Games (as long as our proprietary software functions)
Also, even if it was fragmentation I'd prefer competition to ensue. I don't want another Steam situation, even if in theory a launcher isn't holding any valuable data hostage.
It's not a port, but Heroic is an implementation of the GOG ~standard~ store as a Linux user. I will use it until I can't.
Why? Precisely because of what you say: I don't want another Steam. Heroic does others like Epic, too; open consolidation like this is my ideal.
I'm not really against GOG taking a swing. I'm comfortable calling it a reference/backup, but I do prefer something like Heroic.
False. That's literally the point of GOG. You can download the games directly from their website, install them, and run them without running any GOG software. GOG could vanish tomorrow and you'd still be able to play every game you purchased, as long as you backed up their installers somewhere.
I appreciate the first party reference and backup, but I'll stick with this for the consolidation.
Oh to be private/not beholden to shareholders, open to build for a ~small~ growing target [that has largely managed without them]. I'm envious, really. We're looking at the next Valve, I tell you! All it will take is the one hire for this listing, a penguin, Bellevue, and Codeweavers.
Minus sarcasm: I understand their interests in this and how it might even be a net benefit for all. I won't say it will be free, Heroic users paying the toll. Oops, there I go being loose with words again.
Supporting Heroic would appear on-brand given their old game/archival messaging, but I'm not learning marketing for free.
Not really against a first-party option, even. I do, however, find the inevitable user split notable.
To be clear: I'm for a first party solution. I support their efforts as much as I can. It will have considerable impact on the users. Both ways.