The Linux team at Unity grew a little ~6 months ago. You're starting to see improvements just now because the Unity version we work internally is between 3 to 6 months in advance with the released versions (right now I'm working on a feature for the future 2019.3 for instance).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@TheRiddick maybe try with an AMD GPU for your next rig? FreeSync/VRR should arrive with Linux 5.0 (in a few weeks). But I don't know about dual screens... I prefer/got used to having just one (even at work, I traded two 1080 for one 4K).

Hope to see you back on Linux soon

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NeverthelessFlatpak Steam on any distribution also turns up as "Linux 4.x".

I can validate, just had the Steam survey today and saw "Linux 4.x", although I'm on Fedora.
Maybe listing all these as Arch skews up the numbers a little, especially since how much Fedora devs are the ones pushing for Flatpak.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I tried Lutris v0.4 (the one installable with my distribution) yesterday to see how it will work with my Steam library.

Turns out it doesn't work with Steam installed with Flatpak apparently.

Has the v0.5 fixed this issue maybe?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lucinosMaybe they should think my idea, make it free to play for linux! If linux has such a small share then it does not make it any different financially for a game that support it anyway :-P

But if you buy a game on Steam, it's available on all the platforms. So people will get it for free on Linux and play it on Windows...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: jardonWe've seen the same model with other games and its not really a big deal.

I think that might be the deal actually, the same game already existed before (several time I would say). So what's the interest in investing time and money into yet another CCG then?

I almost bought Artifact as well. As a Dota 2 player, I was expecting a F2P game with lots of cosmetics stuff to buy (cards with hats!), which I don't think is something that already exists in CCGs -- F2P, yes, but with only cosmetic purchase, not that I can recall. But I was disappointed to see it was the complete opposite: you have to buy the game, and you have to buy your progression... not at all what I was expecting from a Valve game derived from the Dota universe. They might have been too greedy on this one.

I actually don't really care about having a 3rd opus of some Valve game. If it happens, hooray! but I can also live without, there are so many gems in Steam that can make me wait patiently ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ne0The EULA now prevents you from hosting anything with Unity runtime:

• hosting a cloud Desktop with Unity


• Hosting a cloud game developed with Unity

The second point is just plainfully wrong. Unity explained it in their answer:

Quoting: From Unity blog postIf a game developer runs a Unity-based game server on their own servers or generic cloud instances (like GCP, AWS or Azure), they are covered by our EULA.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Maybe try sourcing what you're saying. We wouldn't have this kind of "yes. no. yes. no. yes. no" conversation that is quite useless for us, other readers receiving the notifications.

You're fighting on your beliefs, so you'll never agree for sure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: titiThats not good. Unity is trying to commit suicide a bit, Epic decides to go their own way with less and less linux support, Quake engines have no more linux support and so on...
Is there any commonly used engine left which really supports linux too ?

I can assure you Unity is still actively working on Linux support. The player is 100% supported, the Editor is still under development (but available for testing if you want).

And also, multiplayer games are still 100% supported on Unity, no matter which server platform you use.

The EULA modification is for something else (as they explained in their answer).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's indeed a bit confusing, but I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that most people don't know that Unity is used for far more than just games.

In the case of games, it's not a problem as long as the game developers bought their licenses or stayed with the free version of Unity. Once the game is released, if the game has ads in it (like in most mobile games), then Unity receives some cash.

But if you're doing a regular application with Unity, it's trickier. It will depend on the purpose of this application. Say this application is a VR ad for a car. The car company bought their Unity licenses, they can publish their ad wherever they want, everyone is happy.

But what if the application is a web service allowing game developers to use the Unity runtime for free. The base company paid for one license and no one else is paying a license. As much as free is good, Unity still needs to have a viable business model, and this sort of loophole is a problem for their business model.

That is why basically they're saying that games aren't impacted by the new ToS/EULA, but service providers can't profit off of this loophole anymore.

Unity started to speak with Improbable two years ago! But Improbable stated on twitter that it was a complete surprise for them... I'm disappointed by this kind of behaviour, I must say.

View this comment - View article - View full comments