When Tim fucking Sweeney calls you out on your bullshit, you know you’re a special kind of piece of shit.

If you insist upon saying one store is more virtuous than the other… okay? I personally don’t like defending companies but you do you.

Could you please not put words into my mouth? Neither is “virtuous” and I am not defending them. Let’s stick to the facts instead. It’s clear that EGS is being actively hostile towards Linux, while GOG is merely negligent. EGS actively removed Linux support from previously supported games on at least one occasion (Rocket League).

Not nearly the same degree. GOG sells actual Linux games with no 3rd party software necessary to play them. The same cannot be said about EGS, one simply cannot launch an EGS game in an officially supported way.

They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they “can” do. It’s rather their public announcement about what they “will” do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don’t even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.

Just like any game ever sold on a CD.

How does an offline installer from GOG differ from the offline installer provided on a CD/DVD?

This is equally true for almost any game ever sold, including physical ones. You only ever own a license that specifies what you can and cannot do with the game. The difference is in what this license is tied to, for example either a physical copy of a given game or an account that can be remotely deactivated taking away all your games. In GOG’s case once you grab the installer, the game license cannot be easily forcibly revoked, just as with the physical copy.

Consumers? Probably no. Geeks and hackers? Damn yes!