https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |o.dierick@piezo-forte.be
--- Comment #2 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- What was the point of adding Steam and GOG in the license field in the first place? The other values are license types. Steam and GOG provides at least retail, free to use and demo license type applications AFAIK. I think Steam and GOG licenses are confusing.
Uplay and Battle.net are not the same as Steam, GOG or Origin. The former are the developer's own proprietary distribution service, while the later are independent distribution platforms. Uplay and Battle.net are synonyms of Ubisoft and Blizzard, respectively.
AFAIK, there are games that are available on both Uplay and Steam (Far Cry 3, Driver San Francisco, to name a few). Some are even on all distribution platforms (star wars battlefront is available on Steam, GOG and Origin).
The main interest in knowing if a game is from Steam, GOG or other distribution platform is because they often provides modified versions of the application. That information should go into the version field.
IMO, a change that would be more beneficial would be to split the version field into "platform" and "version number". The "platform" field would list distribution platform (Steam, GOG, Origin, Discs, other). The version number field should be the free-form alpha-numeric version number. Search on the platform field could be added to the AppDB.
The "other" entry (a better name can be found) would mean Uplay for Ubisoft, Battle.net for Blizzard or whatever proprietary distribution service used by the developer. There would be no need to list them because there already is a developer field to search on.