They don't bother because all their users have been convinced not to care, perhaps by proprietary software marketing efforts. The free software movement seeks t

They don't bother because all their users have been convinced not to care, perhaps by proprietary software marketing efforts. The free software movement seeks to educate people on why they should care, and why it's valuable for companies to give users freedom instead of trying to lure them into proprietary licensing traps. I don't know what you gain from viewing GNU/Linux as a product that is supposed to compete with proprietary software on the same level, because it's not that at all. As we've seen from countless failed companies trying to pitch GNU/Linux on the desktop, traditional marketing strategies for proprietary software do not carry over to free software. This is the true misallocation of resources and it's the only thing causing the "wheel-spinning" you're referring to. >Sinking a couple of million into a game and providing it for free is not exactly a winning strategy. It's free as in freedom, not free as in price. Most if not all games sell based on content anyway, which doesn't need to be free (as in freedom or as in price) to resolve the problem of the users being treated like garbage and being forced into a subservient relationship.