I played the port last year on my AMD RX 570 and didn't had any issue with it. It's sad to see the native ports go, let's hope the situation will change when Steam Deck arrives.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Anza

Quoting: PangaeaI'm glad most are opposed to NFTs. Next up: Let's kick out micro-transactions too. And gambling boxes. Get back to actual gameplay in games. That would be nice.

If you play just indie games, your wish is already true

Though more seriously it seems that in case when maximizing profit. Based on that list it seems like that if something is too unpopular, there's no guarantee it will be gone for good (only exception is if legislation forbids it) . And there will be always more things to try. Only alternatives that I can see are to sell more copies of the game or rise the price of the game, which in turn means that it will sell less. Though the question is how much profit is enough?

As customer only options seem to be complain loudly and not buy games that use those methods.

I agree with this. But people are usually buying games because they want to play them and they take loot boxes, microtransactions and other gambling mechanics as necessary evil. You still can't go over the top, because the gamers will just want refund or just not buy your game. This happened with the Star Wars: Battlefront for example.

It's much worse in case of F2P games, when the gaming mechanics are slow and frustrating on purpose, because you want the people to buy something to make it less frustrating. But plenty of gamers get used to have games for free. :-/

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AppelsinFortnite won't come to the Steam Deck because it is the Steam Deck, not because of "issues" with EAC. I think it's that simple.

The EPIC is driven by money, so if the Steam Deck will be success (and I hope it will be), they will probably change their decision.

They can even create a proper EPIC Store client for Linux, if there is a demand for it. Man can just dream :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: ZlopezStrange how the insecure Windows, which is targeted by every malware out there is actually more secure for anti-cheat :-D

completely different thing.
one thing is to find an way to run insecure code in an kernel, exploiting its security holes, that is what windows malwares do, the malware capabilities will be limited by the size of the hole, for example, maybe they can control some components of the kernel but no others, and maybe they can do what they want to do without the need of touching the kernel.

on linux on the other hand, you have full access to customize your own kernel code.
you dont need an malware exploiting kernel features to dodge the anti cheat, you can rewrite the code of the kernel to exploit it!

You can do the same on Windows, it's just more difficult. I don't thing even on Linux most cheaters would ever want to mess with their kernel, just to be able to cheat in some game.

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: ZlopezIf they had the anti-cheat software open, it could benefit from free fixes done by the people in open source community.

that is like having an open source password.
security by obscurity DO WORK for passwords.

Passwords are not software (it's just string and the servers should only store hash and add salt as well), so I don't think the anti-cheat software is just password that should benefit from security by obscurity.

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: ZlopezIt's not a coincidence that the best security libraries are open source (and the linux is dominating the server world).

its not a matter of security here, its a matter of freedom, open source softwares is great to allow the user to do whatever he want, and doing whatever he want in that context is CHEATING on an online game.
anti cheat software is akin to proprietary in the sense that it want to limit what the user can or cant do, its also akin to DRM.

This is a correct point, but the freedom of one person ends where freedom of others begins. I don't care if people are cheating in online games at all, it's their choice, but they should do it with the permission of others. I cheated multiple times with my friends on LAN parties, but just for fun and with them knowing.

It will be best to just put cheater in the same match with other cheaters, so they can have fun together.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Strange how the insecure Windows, which is targeted by every malware out there is actually more secure for anti-cheat :-D

If they had the anti-cheat software open, it could benefit from free fixes done by the people in open source community. It's not a coincidence that the best security libraries are open source (and the linux is dominating the server world). Yes, they have their issues, but these are usually fixed quickly, but in the security by obscurity you can have zero day threats that nobody actually knows about (except those who are using them for their own benefit) and nobody is fixing them.

Security through obscurity doesn't work in the software world.

Other thing that could solve this situation is to have anti-cheat software only on server side and don't bother with using it as another DRM on client. In this case you can control the server as you wish and if anybody connects with rigged client, you can just block it (It shouldn't be that hard to validate the client, plenty of services are doing it already in the open source world).

Only thing that makes really sense is the support for various kernels. But same as above, stop rigging the clients with anti-cheat and do a better security on server side.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I must say that the video showed me some of the flaws of crypto I wasn't aware of. But as he said on the beginning of the video the bank funds and bonds are scam as well. Thanks for sharing the info and video.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhlebiacDoesn't it seem like they are starting this process rather late? Especially since it was originally supposed to ship in December?

My reservation is saying "After Q2" as well; I guess by that time there will be enough reviews to get a good idea of whether it's worth jumping in or waiting for an updated model.

I would say they are working on this for some time already, just are in testing phase now and the information are getting to the Steam Store slowly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I just like the idea of having something to play on and don't really need to sit in chair + playing games from my Steam Library. :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Installed from Flathub, thanks for sharing, I was looking for something like this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: elmapul370 million dollars may sound like a lot, but its not, the cost of production of an modern game can go easy to something like 200~250 millions, and those companies dont make games for margins of profit lower than 20%.
not to mention that the money dont belong to a single person who might be an good person that believes in linux/free software and want to see it suceeed, it belong to a bunch of stake holders so its very unlikely we can convince all of the parties involved to support us.

For big budget games, around half the cost goes on marketing (so platform doesn't matter). The biggest chunk of the remainder goes on asset creation - models, textures, motion capture, voice recording, scripts, and so on (where platform doesn't matter). The next biggest chunk goes on the game engine, with particular emphasis on the rendering loop since it's so critical to performance. Platform doesn't inherently matter here, but some platforms have poor support for some rendering APIs. The part where it really matters which platform you're on - your compile target, how you handle files, how you handle input - is a really tiny part of it. If you're not using a platform-specific engine, then adding another platform is cheap.

What isn't cheap, and what scares people away from new platforms (other than simply being bribed for exclusivity), is testing and support costs. It needs to be clear that those costs are going to be significantly lower than the additional revenue that they'll get from the new platform, and that they couldn't make as much extra money by doing something else (like adding new languages).

It's sad to see that most of the big companies are giving more money to marketing than actual development. I understand that you need marketing so the market is aware of the product, but the product itself should have some quality and not only good advertisement.

I would say that if they spent less on marketing and more on making the actual game, it will be much better for their revenues. But I didn't saw any actual numbers, so it's just my opinion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments