Honestly... Stadia is still a bit bass ackwards to me. Now, I'm not a "hard core" gamer, personally. I like good visuals and a high refresh rate like a lot of people, but I don't bug out on a frame drop or two and I can still play PS1 era 3D and enjoy the game... but still, the technical prowess to push what google says Stadia can do graphics wise would be taxing, at best, on your average (US) household's internet connection unless you're willing to shell out serious money to the ISPs. Over cell networks? In my opinion, we are no where near the level of technology where we can pull this off in a consistently stable manner.

Worse, though, is the service model. They say it's like streaming movies or music, but they're not being wholly truthful there. I subscribe to Netflix and all of their movies and TV shows are available to be to stream. I don't have any of this "you get Pro-movies every month and you can purchase non-pro movies to add to your collection". Googles own "movies" service, where I ~DO~ buy each individual movie and TV show season separately at least has the decency of NOT charging me for the service. Amazon Prime's streaming service is the only video streaming service that seems to come close to what Stadia is trying to pull, but even then, at least Prime includes their free 2-day shipping, which, given how much I, at least, get from Amazon on a yearly basis, makes up for the price of the service on its own.

So, here's Stadia... Pay monthly for the service in which they will generously give you a few games... which are probably the games that don't make much money in the first place... then buy the actual games you want to play, shell out a shiz ton of money for an internet connection that can (close to) stably stream those games, all while crossing your fingers that after all that financial investment, Google doesn't drop Stadia like so many of their other services.

I think, if you're going to call yourself the Netflix of video games (and, to be fair, I can't recall if Google themselves ever actually did), then at least use their model... monthly cost for the service, but FULL access to their ENTIRE game library.

That's my opinion anyway... and I'm old and crotchety

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: gradyvuckovic

Quoting: CreakAs a developer, I understand the urge to own and control your own code but, to make a poor analogy, developing your own game editor to make your game is a bit like developing your own Photoshop to create your textures.

No no, that is an EXCELLENT analogy.

I say that as someone who once well victim to it myself.

These days for modern 3D games you need things like inverse kinematics for positioning hands on weapons, tools for generating navigation meshes from level layouts, lightmap bakers and global illumination solutions, soft body simulation for character hair or cloth to move in the wind, ability to stream in level content in separate threads, and of course if you were writing an engine from scratch today you would be using Vulkan..

.. the idea of making a game engine for a game in 2020 is madness unless all you're making is a simple 2D game. Even then I can't help but ask 'Why?'. What exactly do you think your 2D engine is going to do that some other game engine that has been worked on by more people for longer won't do?

You've given a very narrow view of what constitutes a game, though I'm sure that wasn't your intent. If you want to make a game that looks and plays like, say, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, then no you probably wouldn't create an engine from scratch.

But let's take the example of Star Swarm (I'll let you look that up). Particularly at the time, and I daresay it's still true, other engines couldn't handle what it was doing. Not without lobbing stupidly massive computing power at the problem. And therein lies the crux: requiring obscene computing power reduces potential customers, and also makes development an utter pain. Tailoring your own code base to the desired game type has performance, sometimes stability, and development benefits in many (not all) situations.

It's a balancing act of course. If an existing game engine does all you need, use it. If not, can it be modified to do what you need, and what effort will that require. Is it complete overkill, will it limit potential customers and sales, or will it provide more.

No Man's Sky. Existing engines couldn't handle the procedural generation requirements, as in literally weren't written to handle the data precision needed. The developers had to write their own engine.

Generic game engines are great for many developers, but if you overlay the use cases in a sort of Gaussian distribution, there's still extreme ends where a pre-existing game engine simply isn't suitable. That's because not all games are the same (thank goodness), and not all developers have the same level of resources available to them.

And I've ignored something else that goes into making a game: the reasons for making it. Particularly for indie developers, there are programming language reasons (a game is a great way to hone one's skills), personal satisfaction, of just plain freedom to play around entirely unconstrained by someone else's whimsy. Graphics aren't everything, after all.

If I may add just my two cents on top of this...

If there were not some people out there that took on the challenge of making new game engines, then we wouldn't have the likes of Godot, Unity, Unreal, Game Maker, Cryengine, etc, etc. Furthermore, if *everyone* falls into the belief that it's not worth making a game engine, how many future engines with even better features or design methodologies may we miss out on?

The great many game developers out there may be best suited to make their game in a pre-existing engine. For those that are excited about going the extra (thousand) mile(s) and building something literally from the first bit onwards, it's those dedicated souls that keep the industry growing, give the others options, and allows everyone to build something new!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As cool as this news is, my take away is more an interest in what's happening with MacOS development?!

I've been tinkering with getting a (used) Mac recently so that when I make some of my Game Jam games, I can test and release them on Mac... but if Apple is going to have me jumping through hoops just to get a program released on their system, I'm wondering if I should even bother investing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LunielleWhat's the use of programs like this if you're using a game engine which already has a level editor built-in, such as, Godot?

I may still some things to learn about Godot, but, the way I see if, sure, you can build the map in Godot itself, but then it becomes built into the game... where, if you build the map outside of the engine, you can load those maps in outside of Godot's engine structure, making it easier to add more and more maps post release.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Loved the original. I hope they add some good stuff to the already enjoyable formula of the original!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: ObsidianBlkOnce "released", honestly, I do not feel software should be "patched" beyond stability and security, otherwise, I feel, companies can (and do) break their own promises.

(...)

I mean, honestly, when we used to buy software, there was never... NEVER any risk that it would suddenly stop working on the systems it was written to work for. Now these games can just be snatched away from us on the whim of the company that makes it... effectively stealing our products from us.

Well see, effectively this is what they’re doing. Your client will still be yours and playable on the systems it was designed for, but you won’t be able to connect to their matchmaking servers because your version won’t match theirs. And so, ironically, it’s precisely because they won’t be patching your OS’s version anymore that you won’t be able to connect.

Quoting: ObsidianBlk... and, yes, WINE does, in fact, give these lazy, pathetic companies an excuse to pull back on a promise. It's not WINE's fault, but, none-the-less, it is true.

Do you seriously think they would have kept supporting Linux if not for the existence of a potential workaround? They don’t care either way, their decision is made, they just suggest it to alleviate the frustration.

First, breaking connection to their server is still, effectively, the same. They are renegging on how they presented and put forth the product to their customers at the time those customers bought the software. Given that the servers themselves are not defunct (rendering the software unavailable to all), then they still have effectively lied to their customer base. The fact that current law doesn't see this as a problem does not mean this is not a problem.

Secondly, these developers released a Linux (and Mac) client. To do so, they should have (and should be EXPECTED TO HAVE) done their research. They should KNOW the relative user bases for all supported platforms, the limitations of those platforms based on the tech available to them, and stick with their decisions. To then try to excuse their pull out by stating the user base means this company is either REALLY stupid for not doing their due diligence (and question what else they could have skimmed over and be f'ing up long term) or they think WE'RE really stupid (in which case, f' them).

As for whether they would have continued to support linux (and/or Mac) regardless of WINE... can you prove they wouldn't have? You might be right, but unless you know for a fact WINE had absolutely no sway at all in their decision, then my argument is still valid. At the very least I can see someone saying... "hey, they can still play using that WINE thing, so if anyone tries anything legally we can say they can still play it through that, so... it's not like we REALLY took it away."

Also... why wouldn't WINE be part of any sort of decision as such? Steam is basically making it a core advertising strategy on the Linux side of their store, so if it's visible to us, the consumer, it's definitely visible to the developers and publishers even contemplating our platform, so why wouldn't a company (whether they "really" had to or not) use that to their perceived advantage. Again, I'm not knocking WINE or any associated project. It's not really their fault if and when this does happen, but to pretend there aren't those that WILL use it as such is sticking your head in the damn sand and allowing companies a pass.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lectrode

Quoting: GustyGhost

Quote...of the active total and when "viable workarounds exist" with Wine being mentioned.

[...]

"Wine is not harmful to Linux gaming"

Have we learned our lesson yet?

The issue is not the existence of a translation layer. The issue is lack of market share. They specifically said that Mac and Linux users comprised "0.3%" of their total player base (that's likely all platforms, not just PC) - not enough to merit the costs behind supporting those platforms.

The developers of Wine/Proton/Dxvk and other translation layers are actively giving people more reason to switch to Linux from windows. You're blaming the very technologies that provide a bridge for more people to start using Linux.

Yes, WINE is giving people more reason to switch (sort of), and, yes, we shouldn't blame them for their work. That said, you can't brush away the fact that these bridges are also enabling companies to simply pull support for platforms they once promised they'd support.

It's a completely different story if a gamer were using WINE to run Witcher 3, or Assassins Creed, or some other such game that never promised any sort of Linux support to being with, but when you have a developer/publisher that originally promised a platform was going to be directly supported, then pull that support because the "users compromise only 0.3% of the total player base" means they're lazy. Not only that, but they f&^%ing suck at a core responsibility of a developer/publisher releasing a product, which would be RESEARCH into the platform they're releasing to. These companies should have been WELL AWARE of the relative player base between platforms BEFORE promising to support them in the first place. There is NO EXCUSE for these companies to pull platform support. And it should be illegal...

... and, yes, WINE does, in fact, give these lazy, pathetic companies an excuse to pull back on a promise. It's not WINE's fault, but, none-the-less, it is true.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I look forward to that point in time where laws catch up to this practice and deem such things illegal. Once "released", honestly, I do not feel software should be "patched" beyond stability and security, otherwise, I feel, companies can (and do) break their own promises.

If the package says "Windows", "Mac", "Linux", then you take two of three of those away, then you now have effectively created misleading advertising based on material available at the point of purchase. As far as I have ever seen, there has never been (in "released" software) any warning about "Platform availability subject to change"

I mean, honestly, when we used to buy software, there was never... NEVER any risk that it would suddenly stop working on the systems it was written to work for. Now these games can just be snatched away from us on the whim of the company that makes it... effectively stealing our products from us. Refunds are NOT OK as an answer to this. What if someone doesn't WANT a refund? They just want to play the damn game they bought (and for many, bought YEARS ago).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fagnerlnHERE WE GO AGAIN...

We don't need the government controlling even more our lives, the parents should moderate what their children are using.

You know, if you're talking about parents moderating whether their kids are playing a mature game, sure! However, let's look at a game like Fifa, which has a HUGE number of MTX... I just looked it up... all of the game that I saw were rated 'Everyone' (US - ESRB). Why would parents assume they have to monitor and/or moderate their child's use of a game that a recognized ratings board deemed appropriate for... EVERYONE?! Your statement also assumes parents are even aware of the issues going on with Lootboxes and other aggressive MTX strategies. Most aren't. So when they see a game is rated for Everyone, they're going to assume that their little Jane or Johnny is fine.

What makes this rating rather damning is, on a very technical level (the kind of technical level that gives the finger to the spirit of a law and bowls people over with the letter of the law instead), lootboxes and other MTX strategies are not gambling, which leaves the loophole open for games that should be for all ages (like, for kids as much as anyone else) to have predatory gambling (like) transactions designed purely to con gamers (especially kids and others susceptible to gambling-like behaviors) into spending money... all while mom and dad are none the wiser until they suddenly see their child racked up a bill of over $1000 in a game with a rating that suggests it's a perfectly innocent game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZeroPointEnergy

Quoting: ObsidianBlkWhy shouldn't my 20 year old disks count? I have several dozen optical disks, and, as said, I have yet to see a single one as unreadable and decades.

Also, let's assume for a moment we really have a physical storage medium that hardly has any wear. I don't know, maybe some holographic wireless storage that can't corrupt and has no contacts that can corrode.

Would anyone argue, that just because the physical product you bought doesn't get destroyed with time you should not have the right to sell it?

I think the issue we are discussing here is one of ownership. I can't understand why people are so willing to play along and just completely accept that things you buy and are by all means presented as if you buy them are not your property.

And sure, this will cause some headache for the game industry, but in the end they will adapt and hopefully not in the bad way in that they try again with such tricks to prevent us from owning the products they sell us.

Also, coming back to physical copies. They don't just deteriorate and are gone. Some of those products even gain in value over time. If you have even a semi old collection of games, it will not be hard to find at least one product people will pay vastly more for than you actually payed originally. You don't get that with digital copies, and that is a pretty good compensation for the fact that it doesn't deteriorates. Still, it should be something we own if we payed for this product.

I very much agree with you!
In fact, my original post said very similar things as yours. I had say that (while I strongly doubt it would ever really happen) I hoped physical distribution would come back... and that just lead a few (including myself) into a debate over the merits of optical disc storage vs hard drive storage. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments