Some of you might be aware of Steam, probably the most popular and successful online game store for Windows. Steam was popular before Apple, Google, or Microsoft were even thinking about "app stores".
While "the first and most successful app store" may be a dubious distinction in some circles, Valve (the company behind Steam) is relatively responsive to their customer base and Steam itself has helped indie game development grow quite a bit. At any rate, they're no Apple or Adobe.
Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm and good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux. My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community?
Is it just me, or is that an incredibly moderate opinion coming from Richard Stallman? I seem to remember an essay on the GNU website a long time ago (though I can't find it now) discussing why it might be a bad idea to port Free software to Windows because it would encourage users to continue using a proprietary OS. In this case, the users would still be using proprietary software-- while there are some excellent Free games out there, they are relatively few and far between-- but they would be using these games on a Free OS.
Is Stallman becoming more moderate? Should we worry about the Overton Window shrinking in the future? Or are we expecting Free alternatives to Skyrim or DayZ soon?
Personally, I would prefer a world with only Free software, but I understand that's probably not going to happen completely. I do think strong advocacy for Free software is necessary, though, because it's a highly misunderstood and counter-intuitive issue. It's also one that a lot of people don't happen to take seriously, even though it affects them more than they realize.
Anyway, discuss! Or... don't!