Quoting: Pecisk

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThis has been around for bloody ages but it seems like it's moving faster lately.

They sorted crowdfunding question for them and thus got additional revenue.

Ah, that would explain it. Clever.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleThis is one of the very few actually commercial quality OSS game projects and I am not sure if "very few" actually means "the only one" (I can't think of a second one right now). I hope they will get it done one day. Looks very good.

Battle for Wesnoth?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This has been around for bloody ages but it seems like it's moving faster lately.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManIt's about time Stardock started showing us some love. They said they would bring GalCiv 3 to Linux but obviously never did.

Yeah. I'm kind of surprised actually--when I looked into it, because GalCiv are totally my kind of games, it seemed like Stardock was a very Windows-centric, DirectX kind of shop. If even they are starting to come around that could be kind of a good omen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasSo what is the recommended way to use Optimus hardware now? Should Bumblebee be replaced by PRIME?

Optimus PRIME, you say?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: melkemind

Quoting: Pecisk

Quoting: Mountain ManNot just AAA titles, we need big players like Blizzard and EA to come aboard. I would especially like to see native Linux builds of Diablo 3, Hearthstone, and Heroes of the Storm. I love what companies like Feral and Aspyr have done, and Valve, of course, but they can't do it all.

Both EA and Activision are very greedy. Don't expect them to join Linux world any time soon.

They're not human beings, despite what some U.S. laws might say. :) Therefore, they can't be greedy. They're emotionless corporations, and the driving factor behind corporations is profit. All it takes is an executive with some foresight willing to take a risk on something like Linux, which won't be immediately profitable. In the absence of someone like that, a corporation is going to stick with whatever makes it money.

As Zelox suggested above, it's going to take a lot of patience and hope before Linux will become a competitive gaming platform. Maybe it never will. We just have to wait and support companies that make an effort to sell games for it, but there's little point in having ill feelings toward those companies that choose not to, including Microsoft, because it's not personal at all.

Your analysis is spot-on, but your conclusion IMO is not. There is absolutely a point to having ill feelings towards those companies. They may not be human, but we are--it's easier to boycott and otherwise avoid, counsel people to avoid and so on if we harbour ill feelings towards them. And if we do enough of that stuff, it will cost them profits. And if it costs them profits, then in a totally non-personal fashion they may in the end do what we want. All because of irrational ill feelings. Indeed, I might even claim that that is the point of ill feelings--dislike, anger, and hatred are the mechanisms humans use to successfully apply tit-for-tat type game theory approaches to conflict.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut in that case, you shouldn't be complaining about political correctness...

Of course I can,

Of course you can. Free speech and all, we established that. But just because someone can do something does not mean they are justified in doing it.

Quotebecause the question was asked with the sole purpose of injecting controversy into something that was otherwise completely non controversial.

"into something that was otherwise completely non controversial" . . . well, if you mean that the interviewer didn't ask any other controversial questions, I suppose that's a true statement, but so what? What would your point be? What kind of belief system sees controversy as inherently evil? Shortly ago you were defending your right to be obnoxious about attacking things you identify as "political correctness" on the basis of free speech. Even if you consider controversial speech inherently annoying or offensive (in which case you're forgetting the whole point behind freedom of speech, which is precisely to preserve controversial, political speech, seen as the important baby for whose sake the bathwater of rudeness, obscenity and so on must be grudgingly kept), your right to complain about it is identical to a controversial speaker's right to indulge in it. Trying to have it both ways is a contradiction.

For that matter, controversial is in the eye of the beholder. Many would consider categorical attacks on political correctness themselves "controversial". In which case you should be on your own case for the sin of controversy, while simultaneously defending yourself as exerciser of free speech.

If on the other hand you mean that the question's topic should not have controversy attached to it--well, no. You're wrong about that, and at a bare minimum a lot of people disagree with you in good faith and have serious reasons for doing so. Including but not limited to some of the things I pointed out before, which you have carefully ignored. Let us assume that you, too, have serious reasons for your stance, beyond just "I hate this topic and wish people would shut up about it" (although I have not seen them). If you have serious reasons for thinking things like all-white-characters are just fine, and other people have serious reasons for thinking they are problematic, then that is a situation that calls for argument, discussion, meeting of minds--not for the people who disagree with you to just stop. Which is to say, it is a controversy--it is controversial--and no amount of pretending it somehow shouldn't be will change the fact.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd I have every right to tell you your reaction is stupid (or nasty, or unconsciously racist, or whatever) and we can go on forever (I also have every right to say the moon is made of green cheese).

Uh, no. The only logical response to a criticism of a criticism is a justification. To criticize a criticism of a criticism would be ridiculous, it would only prove there was no reasoning behind the original criticism.

Say what? First, the man was talking about rights, not logic. As in "I can say whatever I want cuz right to free speech". Since such rules apply to all, I too could say whatever I want--this is at the level of syllogistic logic, it's not in dispute. Second, it's not illogical to criticize anything which seems flawed. If a criticism of a criticism seems to me flawed, it makes sense to point out the flaw in that c-of-c, ergo to criticize it. There is no point or need in justifying one's stance if the premise from which I would need to defend it is wrong.
So no, you're completely mistaken.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: ricki42

Quoting: Mountain ManBecause the question is entirely predicated on the fallacy of political correctness.

Political correctness isn't a fallacy, it's [[...] a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness). You calling something PC doesn't invalidate it. It's just a lazy way of dismissing somebody else's concerns.

You've got it the wrong way around. Political correctness is primarily used as a tool to silence dissenting opinions.

And yet, if we look at the pattern in this case, what we have is someone asking a question and being told to shut up on the basis that the question is "politically correct".

Look, the interviewer had every right to ask the question just as the developer had every right to wisely ignore it, and I have every right to point out that it was a stupid question. Do you understand how this whole freedom of speech thing works yet?

And I have every right to tell you your reaction is stupid (or nasty, or unconsciously racist, or whatever) and we can go on forever (I also have every right to say the moon is made of green cheese). But in that case, you shouldn't be complaining about political correctness, which is merely someone exercising their free speech rights to say it's nasty for people to say or do certain things. And you certainly shouldn't, by the standard you're espousing, be saying people shouldn't do political correctness. If it's free speech for the goose, it's free speech for the gander. You're inconsistent. You have the right to be inconsistent, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

Quoting: Mountain ManIt wouldn't bother me in the slightest. That is if I even noticed because I don't fixate on things like that.

Maybe I believe that coming from you. I sure as hell don't believe it's true of around half the responders on this thread. Sorry, but no, they could swear up and down until they were blue in the face and I'd be like "Yeah, right." Not that I think they're racist, exactly. But I do think they would be eminently capable both of seeing all-white-characters as not racist or problematic and of seeing all-black-characters as an obvious attempt to annoy them by bringing up race, and if the two didn't happen to happen right next to each other and nobody pointed it out, would see no inconsistency. And in a way it's true--it's even the point. In the world we live in, people do just happen to make all-white games (and movies, and so on)--quite often. And they don't just happen to make all-black games--ever. If we are willing to pay attention, that tells us something about the world we live in and who is, and is not, in charge of it, and who does, and does not, have the money to either buy the games or produce them.
Now the real core problem here is who is in charge and has the money, and who is not in charge and is broke. But the representation thing makes a difference. It is not foolish to ask questions about it. Just because you are not willing to think about an issue, does not mean it does not exist. It just means you are not willing to pay enough attention to gain an understanding of what's going on.

Now there has been a reasonable point made: Asking the question was rude, and also basically counterproductive if the point was to do a puff-piece on a Linux game. That may be so--but the "PC bullshit" rage is itself bullshit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: ricki42

Quoting: Mountain ManBecause the question is entirely predicated on the fallacy of political correctness.

Political correctness isn't a fallacy, it's [[...] a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness). You calling something PC doesn't invalidate it. It's just a lazy way of dismissing somebody else's concerns.

You've got it the wrong way around. Political correctness is primarily used as a tool to silence dissenting opinions.

And yet, if we look at the pattern in this case, what we have is someone asking a question and being told to shut up on the basis that the question is "politically correct". I have seen this many times. So just which dissenting opinions are being silenced, here?

The logic I'm seeing is largely implicit rather than stated, but basically seems to be something like "There is no such thing as racism, so whatever people are wondering if it might in some way be racist isn't, so anyone questioning things that might be related to possible racism should shut up and never mention the subject again."
There are two problems with that
1. There very much is such a thing as racism, and it has not gone away.
2. If there actually weren't such a thing as racism, or if it really were effectively nonexistent in whatever context the question was raised, people wouldn't have to get so butthurt about it and feel such a need to stampede to shut down the conversation. But they do. Makes me wonder what everyone's so goddamn defensive about.

Now, consider. There are more nonwhite people in the world than white ones. And yet, for instance, one of the people commenting here and considering the question total political correctness assumed that the only possible alternative to having all whites would be to have "the token black guy". Um . . .
So tell me honestly--would it weird any of you out if the game just happened, without any particular explanation, to have all black and brown people on the train, including the main character? Betcha it would. Betcha there'd be people whining like crazy about how that, too, was political correctness gone wild or "reverse racism" or something--few would be assuming that it just happened to be that way. It would obviously be some kind of deliberate political statement, and one you would not appreciate. So then, if all whites is just how things happen to be but all blacks would be "politically correct bull****", what kind of situation are we in? A racist situation, even if nobody involved was thinking "I wanna screw over those &%#! blacks".

View this comment - View article - View full comments