Ugh. Why go with older standards (USB Type-A)?

The whole world is moving towards USB Type-C, albeit slowly... It would have made waaay more sense to include multiple USB Type-C ports, and just one or two USB Type-A 3.1 ports (it's just silly to use superseded standards).

I really don't understand the logic here... Not that it matters, because Australians can't get the Steam Deck anyway, and by the time we will be able to, USB4 (the latest standard, released in 2019) will probably be commonplace. 🙄

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyI quite literally just finished manually backing-up my data (by copying-and-pasting to a "spare" storage drive - I don't trust "automatic" back-up tools), and now I'm just waiting for Pop!_OS 22.04 LTS to drop, so I can do a "clean" install (I always do a "clean" install when a new 'LTS' release drops, to rid my system of any unwanted junk)...

Copy and paste? May I suggest the following:
 
rsync -avxHAX [src] [dest]
You will get all the permissions and stuff that way.

I'm all done now, but thanks for this!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: XetalI`m waiting for Pop!_OS 22.04 LTS Version.

This.

I quite literally just finished manually backing-up my data (by copying-and-pasting to a "spare" storage drive - I don't trust "automatic" back-up tools), and now I'm just waiting for Pop!_OS 22.04 LTS to drop, so I can do a "clean" install (I always do a "clean" install when a new 'LTS' release drops, to rid my system of any unwanted junk)...

Looks like they still have twelve issues outstanding (at the time of writing), and they've only made it through two of the QA issues today, so we could be waiting a few more days for Pop!_OS 22.04 yet...

Quoting: EhvisBeen on Ubuntu for 18 years now. Had it ups and downs, but for the most part it's been reliable.

I've been using Ubuntu since the very first public version, 4.10 ("Warty Warthog"), because one of their reps had given me an install CD at some trade show I attended... I'd always "dabbled" with Linux-based operating systems before this, mostly Red Hat Linux and occasionally S.u.S.E. / SuSE Linux, but Ubuntu was the first time I'd given Linux-based operating systems a real look.

In saying this, I did dual-boot until about 2012 / 2013, before finally making the decision to switch to a single-boot setup... Controversially, I didn't actually think that there was anything wrong with Microsoft's 'Windows 8' operating system (besides the privacy concerns) - I would even go as far as saying I liked it; but Ubuntu was my 'primary' operating system (by this stage, I was really only using Windows 8 for gaming) and I have always found the performance of Ubuntu to be superior to that of Microsoft Windows-based operating systems.

So I made the jump to a single-boot setup.

And with minor exceptions, I've briefly "dabbled" with other Linux distros over the years, I've stuck with Ubuntu in all that time.

I am planning to change to Pop!_OS when 22.04 LTS drops though... I dabbled with Pop!_OS back when it first released and wasn't too impressed; but I recently tested it on a "spare" computer and felt that the experience was vastly improved over Ubuntu.

The final "nail in the coffin" though, is the fact that Pop!_OS does not support Snap "out-of-the-box", instead offering native support for Flatpak "out-of-the-box"... People can say what they want about Snaps versus Flatpaks, but in the Real World, there's not really all that much difference in the performance between the two - Flatpaks are slightly more "open" though, and there are significantly more distros supporting or planning to support Flatpak "out-of-the-box", so that's where I'm putting my money for the eventual "winner" (though I use that term loosely, because Snap does have its advantages, too).

My current Ubuntu system has a whole "Frankenstein" Snap / Flatpak thing going on... It's just "neater" and otherwise more logical to go the "Flatpak only" route with Pop!_OS going forwards, particularly when it is pretty likely Flatpaks will eventually come out on top.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyHow is 'Surviving Mars' not supported?

The reason is given on the page, something along the lines of "Valve is improving Steam Deck support of the game" - whatever that actually means. But for sure it's gonna be Playable of Verified later.

It's probably something trivial, like the controls or something... I was watching a video from @TheLinuxGamer on Odysee a week or two ago, and he was saying that one of the reasons a game may not be considered "verified" is because of the control setup.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhiladelphusUp to 27% for me, with just Ultimate Chicken Horse and Supporting* Surviving Mars unsupported.

How is 'Surviving Mars' not supported?

I have the 'GOG.com' version - which natively supports Linux-based operating systems - and a quick check of the 'Steam Store' page shows that it is listed as natively supporting Linux-based operating systems in that store, also... Even ProtonDB lists it as natively compatible, and there is the occasional comment from somebody that has tested it on the Steam Deck directly, confirming that it works on the 'Deck too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalBTW, since I start to get lost here... linux remains unsupported pausesupported correct? What we are disccussing here is just the official partial/non intrusive EAC 4 windows support for proton. Or is partial support also for linux native?

EAC now has native support for Linux-based operating systems (again?); don't quote me, but I believe this applies only to the most recent version of EAC... However, Epic Games has publicly stated that they will not support a version of 'Fortnite: Battle Royale' (which uses EAC) for Linux-based operating systems at this time, either natively or via Proton.

This thread is about the reasoning behind that, as there is debate as to whether Epic Games' arguments in support of this stance are justified or not.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: catbox_fuguelets not forget that EAC used to work on linux natively prior to Epic buying it.

I've not heard this before, but if true, it's not a good look for Epic Games... I suspect though, that they'll try and downplay this fact, so that people don't point out the hypocrisy of refusing to support Linux-based operating systems.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RCL

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyYour comments imply that you work for - or have some direct involvement with - Epic Games, @RCL...

Yes, I do work there, not on the anti-cheat though. And here I'm privately, as just another Linux user.

Well it's nice to have you here, even in an unofficial capacity... The Linux Community can still indirectly benefit from your presence, because of things like your ability to (privately) provide feedback the your superiors based on "the feeling on the ground".

Far too many senior executives mis-read their customer base; so any feedback, even indirect feedback, is always a good thing in my opinion.

---

I don't follow along enough to know how much Epic Games make off Fortnite: Battle Royale, but you would think that if they were making the sort of money others are making with in-app purchases - and I know some of the companies out there are making huge amounts of money off in-app purchases (only recently I read an article about how just one of EA's sports games was effectively paying for most of their expenses via its in-app purchases!) - that paying for the AI tech to enable server-side anti-cheat solutions would be entirely affordable...

Anybody know how much Epic Games make off Fortnite: Battle Royale (and can actually disclose said information)?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Your comments imply that you work for - or have some direct involvement with - Epic Games, @RCL...

So how then, is it that Fortnite: Battle Royale is available on Android-based operating systems - which are famously easy to "hack" (lock and unlock the bootloader; replace kernels; run custom code; replace ROMs and loads of other things) - yet it is not going to be coming to the Steam Deck?

Then there's the numbers.

Steam has approximately 25 million active users (the number varies, but it's around this figure) who are all playing games (i.e. every one of them is a potential Fortnite: Battle Royale player); Android-based operating systems have somewhere in the vicinity of 250-300 million active users, but only a portion of those will be actively playing games on their smartphones (most of which are so-called "casual games") and only a portion of that will be Fortnite: Battle Royale.

For comparison's sake, let's say half (about 150 million) are actively playing games on those smartphones on a regular basis and let's say a third of that are actively playing Fortnite: Battle Royale on their smartphone, instead of playing it on a console or computer.

That makes about 50 million users playing Fortnite: Battle Royale on their smartphones instead of a console... 50 Million users is not all that much more than 25 million, particularly if you consider that I'm being generous with my numbers, with a bias towards Fortnite: Battle Royale.

Of course, most of this is guesswork - but I'd be awfully surprised if it's much more than 25 million who prefer to play Fortnite: Battle Royale on a tiny smartphone over a console or a portable console.

In essence, the potential market for Fortnite: Battle Royale on mobile devices is probably about the same and the ability to cheat the game is probably easier on (some) mobile devices (remember, Fortnite: Battle Royale is also available on the Nintendo Switch and Sony PlayStation Vita via Remote Play)...

As I said above, I personally don't care because if Epic Games don't want to bring Fortnite: Battle Royale to the Steam Deck, it's only a matter of time until there's a viable alternative available... It's not a question of "if" an alternative will become available, but rather "when".

But I do struggle to wrap my head around the business decision, because people that know more about this stuff than I do seem to be able to easily discard most of Epic Games' arguments with ease.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyIt's no big loss... Feral Interactive do horrible ports, and having a low-quality port available for Linux-based operating systems sends the wrong message to new Linux gamers.

The Feral Vulkan ports they have been making for the last couple of years are the best ever made. Proton can't match it. So that statement is pure nonsense.

Bulldust. I have a number of their games and their ports are "average" at best.

I've even bought a couple of their ports for the Nintendo Switch and every time, I'm not in the least bit surprised to see how low-quality the ports are.

There are exceptions of course, there always are... But in the vast majority of cases, I have found their ports to be rather dismal.

Ironically, 'Tomb Raider' was one of those exceptions - I've always found it to run flawlessly when compared to both my PlayStation 3 and my PlayStation 4 Pro copies, so I was pretty surprised when I read this article.

View this comment - View article - View full comments