Quoting: EdmeneWell the few gaming related things in Win 10 are dx12 (didn't show any major improvement in comparison with dx11 in general) and the xbox app (make the performance worst due to game recording if you don't disable it).

I'm no expert, but it seems to me the general consensus is that DX12 is quite good, very similar to Vulkan, and is in fact a significant improvement over DX11.
While as near as I can make out Windows 10 is worse than Windows 8 in many ways, I can see the argument that it is better from a gaming/game developer perspective.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Redface

Quoting: barotto

Quoting: wleoncioit's up to Valve to create a suitable competitor

Valve cannot create a suitable competitor to Windows.
Why the hell should I use SteamOS, which is nothing more than a crippled console OS, when I can use Windows, a full blown operating system??? Which, by the way, allows me to play the entirety of the Steam library at full speed.

We need a polished and complete desktop OS.
Ubuntu was promising 10 years ago, now it's a clusterfuck.

SteamOS has its flaws, but being a crippled console OS is not one of them.

Well, you can force it to act like a real desktop Linux if you know what you're doing. But its reason for existence is to be a console OS. It is almost certainly easier to wipe it and install Mint or something than to get SteamOS itself configured to be a good desktop.
But it's ludicrous to complain about it. Valve took Linux and used it to create a console OS so they could ship a console. Now barotto is complaining that (shock! horror!) SteamOS is a console OS. Well, duh. There are plenty of good Linux desktop distributions; SteamOS isn't one of them just like whatever they stick in routers isn't one of them--it's not supposed to be.
Valve has not so far attempted to create a competitor to Windows; they seem to have assumed that Ubuntu, Mint, and so on were handling that side of things. Valve adding one more desktop Linux distro would have just caused resentment and it probably would have sucked anyway because that's not their expertise. Instead they tried to create a competitor to Microsoft's Xbox, which would synergize with desktop Linux. They didn't succeed, at least not so far, but SteamOS has acted as sort of a reference implementation for gaming and a target for game developers. I suspect that nowadays distro rollers who care about desktop users try to get in sync with SteamOS for the gaming-relevant stuff so games will run.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Shouldn't your character float and have a lot more eyes? ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As to the privacy, I've noticed a trend. Basically, each version of Windows invades your privacy more thoroughly and tries to control your updating and whatnot more aggressively than the version before.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chrisq

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe future is unknowable, therefore you can never say anything has failed, ever. We may be back to horses and carriages in a few years after civilization collapses.
But this is not a useful way of thinking about the issue, certainly not from the perspective of a Linux enthusiast who is assessing whether Steam Machines have made any real difference to Linux gaming.

I could just as easily turn you bs around and say that something isn't a major success in the first hour it's released, then it is a failure.

The problem is the people saying the Steam Machine has failed are saying "Well it failed to do this, and it failed to do that, so it failed", and the people saying it didn't are saying, "Well, you can't say it failed just because it failed at this and that, that's too narrow" but you're not suggesting any alternative measure. You're not saying "Well, if it had failed in these other ways, that would be failure". You end up effectively just saying there's no such thing as failure. It's a cheap way for it to be impossible to lose an argument--no matter how many more areas people point to where the Steam Machine failed, you can always just say "Nope, still too narrow, you can't say it failed just because of that". But it's bogus, your position becomes meaningless. If you won't allow some set of criteria we could judge success or failure by, your denials of other people's criteria are empty.

QuoteYour problem is that he didn't make that distinction, it was about if stream machines were a success or not, not whether they made a difference to Linux gaming. If that was the case it would have been even better though. Steam machines are the natural conclusion to valve's Linux gamble. It has taken us from a handful to 3000 games in a couple of years.
Obviously there greatest thing to ever happen to gaming on Linux.

Except the current pace of games arriving for Linux was basically reached well before the Steam Machines were released and then continued even after it became clear to game developers that the Steam Machines were not going to impact game sales. Valve's push for Linux more generally had a big impact; I suspect that had a lot to do, for instance, with creating enough pressure to put Linux enthusiasts in major game engine producers in a position to make them work for Linux. And those engines themselves supporting Linux was a huge win; it brought the cost of cross-platform down to where even the small Linux market share was likely worth it. Even Valve's creation of SteamOS was significant. Even though it's not really a major distribution in terms of actual users, it does I think create a target for game developers so they can ignore the mass of distros if they want, and a centre of gravity so that people doing Linux distributions can say "OK, if I want games to run, make it compatible with SteamOS".

Steam Machines themselves, not so much. I have yet to see a smidgen of evidence that Steam Machines in specific helped foster game development on Linux. Maybe a little bit before the release, but not after their (lack of) impact had been seen. Current pace of games being released for Linux is if anything in spite of Steam Machines, not because of them.

I cannot think of a relevant measure by which one could say Steam Machines were a success. Things could still change in the future, and if they did that would be a Good Thing. But it would take a concerted effort by Valve that tackled the weaknesses of the product--effectively a re-launch. After which we'd be able to say the new Steam Machines were a success. But the first iteration have not been.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The future is unknowable, therefore you can never say anything has failed, ever. We may be back to horses and carriages in a few years after civilization collapses.
But this is not a useful way of thinking about the issue, certainly not from the perspective of a Linux enthusiast who is assessing whether Steam Machines have made any real difference to Linux gaming.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It seems clear that Steam Machines have not sold enough units to budge the overall market share of Linux in the computer gaming world. Games are being released for Linux, not for Steam Machines--the notion that they're even being released for "SteamOS" (as opposed to Ubuntu/Mint/Debian/whatever) is just a polite fiction developers endorse because the platform they sell their games on happens to be behind that minor Linux distribution.
Claiming the Steam Machine is successful because "games are being released for it" is akin to claiming Wine is successful because so many games are "released for it".

One can certainly come up with definitions of "failure" by which Steam Machines haven't failed. But gauged as an attempt to shake up the market for PC gaming and/or consoles, or to take serious steps towards making Linux a major and growing platform for gaming as Gabe Newell seemed from some of his statements to intend, the Steam Machine has not been a success and is not currently on course to ever become a success (although I would argue that in many ways, the Steam Controller on the other hand is a success).
Valve could fix some issues, improve their strategy, and relaunch with a harder push and potentially change all that. But they ain't done it so far and have given no indication that they have any plans to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ElectricPrism(various snippage)
View video on youtube.com

Edit:
☑ Steam & Linux are going to hit nearly 3,000 games

The thing about this comment is that it is off topic.
ElectricPrism talks about two things: First, what really motivates people. I have for a long time found the presentation linked there very compelling, and for that matter overall I am very much in favour of flatter organizational structures. But that doesn't make the article wrong. The article does not claim that the people at Valve lack motivation or that they are not productive, or even that Valve is not broadly effective at making money (clearly it is). Nor does it claim that flat organizational structures are, overall, rubbish. What he claims is that Valve's specific flat organizational structure, combined with a certain view of the employees as "elite", seems to make Valve much better at doing, basically, new sexy creative stuff, than on following through with boring detail work or other stuff that's more unglamorous slogging. This does not contradict ElectricPrism's views on motivation, nor does it really construe flat non-hierarchical organizations generally as ineffective.

Second, ElectricPrism talks about how awesome Linux is and how well it is moving along as a gaming platform, and like that. Well, Linux is awesome and hopefully it will ultimately conquer. But none of that has anything to do with the article, which is about whether Steam Machines have succeeded. They haven't, and every indication seems to be that Valve's efforts to make them do so have pretty much petered out. Most of the article's take on this seems pretty sound to me.

So yeah, both ElectricPrism's major points aren't really wrong, they just don't represent a critique of the article. They're irrelevant.

Aside from that, I think ElectricPrism's comments, particularly the one with all the digital red crayon, are really bloody rude.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That sums up a lot of what's been going on, all right.
Personally, if I were Valve, and looking at a re-launch of Steam Machines, I would not do it this year. Maybe next year . . . right now, I would work hard on the infrastructure of drivers, Vulkan, game engines, maybe even Wayland to get definitively past X, so that next time around, SteamOS wouldn't be lagging performance-wise. Poorer performance compared to Windows was a major killer in PR terms, and really Linux should be able to win there.
And I'd feel out those multimedia issues quietly, getting things sorted out so that I had working code in-house and contracts with Netflix etc. ready to go.

When the pieces were in position, I'd go for a major launch that Christmas.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: cRaZy-bisCuiTWhy don't you guys just accept a game could possibly have no cloaks?


I'm pretty sure they were about to implement cloaks, but then the dev team took an arrow to the knee.

How can you be properly, dramatically evil without a cloak?

View this comment - View article - View full comments