Quoting: Purple Library GuyLot of people saying doesn't matter cause they don't play EA games and already hated EA anyway. I don't think I own any EA games either and not planning to get any. But in context, that is unfortunately somewhat beside the point. The point is, in putting some popular games off limits, could this blunt the growing wave of Steam Deck adoption?

I think probably not, on its own, as long as this doesn't either become a product they successfully sell for use in other games as well, and as long as it's not a harbinger of similar moves by other big game companies. But it's not a happy thing.

I see, so "don't care" could be read in that tone as well, yes.

While I doubt the current state of anti-cheat will significantly slow down Steam Deck adoption, I can definitely see the growing significance of the new market segment as a means for creating enough pressure [ha. ha. Steam. Pressure.] from that other "don't care" crowd to open up the kernel for anti cheat monitoring malware, which they will vehemently demand as rightfully theirs, cheer when it eventually happens, and likely not stop there.
I on the other hand will stop here, it's already depressing enough ;9

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: KimyrielleLet's see where this goes, but I am not too worried. If the worst case happens and that company gets taken over by big-evil-business, I am very confident that Godot will get forked by a new dev team and live happily ever after. It happened after OpenOffice got taken over by big-evil-business, too. The good thing about open source is that it's fairly immune against hostile takeovers.

In the best case, this could be a positive game-changer for Godot. While not everything the team will be working on will get upstreamed to Godot, I am sure that a lot of it will.

I just can't help but wonder how long until the "oops, well of course we promised to give back whenever possible, it just turns out whenever is never" announcement.

The thing is that when your business is wrapped around an open source project, to which there are significant other contributors, "not giving back" actually creates significant costs. Aside from reputational costs, which are going to be serious (look how many people are dumping on them and they haven't even done anything bad yet!) a big cost is just the fact that by effectively creating a separate private fork, you massively increase your maintenance burden. Beyond just maintaining a project, you have to deal with the problem that contributors to the main, open version will not take your private additions into consideration when they add code, so it's gonna break your shit all the time. Or the new open stuff you want to take advantage of will be broken if you try to fit it into your altered codebase, so you gotta tweak it before it will work, but then the open version won't have those tweaks, so when that stuff's updated if you try to import it it will break again . . . way bigger pain than just keeping the thing mostly open.

That is correct, under the assumption you want to keep the business working...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Valck[1] with all the vanilla out there, does anyone actually still crave for more? How about bananas?
[2] relatively, for an open source project. Peanuts for "the gaming industry".

1)the more we need now is more income for developers using godot, consoles might help with this.

2)do you think its more likely for godot to "kill it self" than for the competition to kill it?

More money is certainly welcome.
And therein lies the issue -- accepting investors' money opens up for investors' influence. That is exactly how the competition can get their say in an open source project. Usually not immediately, openly and directly, but yes, that is the big concern I have, that the competition will use their influence over key people as a lever to fracture Godot back into insignificance.

- branch them out into a new company, because reasons. Oh yeah, trade secrets.
- pamper them with money
- slowly introduce new features that can't be backported because of trade secrets
- wait for the community to tear itself apart over this
- ...
- profit

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: KimyrielleParticularly not when said band-aid solutions behave just like malware....

Perhaps it's just me, but in my books they meet the exact definition of it. It's like nobody learned from the music industry's Windows rootkit nonsense 20-odd years ago, or something.

They learned that Sony's still rich.

Some "they" did, and strive to continue its legacy, apparently with great success.
The other "they" still do what they did twenty years ago...

Quoting: WorMzy

EDIT:Link intentionally broken

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleLet's see where this goes, but I am not too worried. If the worst case happens and that company gets taken over by big-evil-business, I am very confident that Godot will get forked by a new dev team and live happily ever after. It happened after OpenOffice got taken over by big-evil-business, too. The good thing about open source is that it's fairly immune against hostile takeovers.

In the best case, this could be a positive game-changer for Godot. While not everything the team will be working on will get upstreamed to Godot, I am sure that a lot of it will.

I just can't help but wonder how long until the "oops, well of course we promised to give back whenever possible, it just turns out whenever is never" announcement.

If the W4 part (port? fork? strain? flavour?) takes off and gains features years ahead of plain vanilla[1] Godot because of massive[2] monetary support, I can't see this as something that can be brushed aside lightly.
The momentum and popularity Godot has been gaining slowly is something that can't be easily forked and replaced by Dogut, or whatever some fork will then be (un-)known as; leaving Godot in the dust of W4dot, and what remains of the community fractured and aimless.
And even though the team of W4 are the core developers of Godot, as I have been educated repeatedly, that doesn't make them saints. Money corrupts, simple as that.

I may see things too negatively, and I sure hope I do; but as I said in that other thread a month ago, certainly a company to keep our eyes on.


[1] with all the vanilla out there, does anyone actually still crave for more? How about bananas?
[2] relatively, for an open source project. Peanuts for "the gaming industry".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: denyasisI think it's cool, but support until 2025... That seems a little short. Is it?

I mean most won't get these until 2023, and maybe I'm weird, but I don't buy hardware with the intent to replace it in just a few years.

It should mean that they will bring new processors for the platform in 2025 - not that you cannot use your old processor anymore after 2025. I cannot think of a case where I replaced a processor, but not mainboard, RAM, ...

Twice in recent memory, with current AM4... 1800/3700/5800.
Multiple times more in ancient history, which many of you may not remember, or weren't even born. I remember several generations of 3- and 486es, and a couple of Athlons, all running fine in the same main boards as their predecessors, and often more than one upgrade. I have always been assembling my machines myself, and I have always hated when I had to upgrade the main boards... and still do.

As such, I agree, "until" 2025 is rather short. If you read it critically, that covers two years. Barely enough for one end-of-life upgrade.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The title, in combination with the image, conjured associations with "Kaena" which was a kind of groundbreaking CG movie back when that wasn't a thing yet. It looks a bit dated by now, but still worth a watch. I wonder if there are any connections with the creative team around it and The Saga of Ryzom (college buddies AFAIK), and this game.

Other than that, I'll go and watch the promo video now, but from the article, it doesn't sound like the type of game is just my cup of tea.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirI was really interrested by this game when it was first announced, but then I read "Epic exclusive". Ok then, this game... Does... Not... Exists and wiped it from my memory.

This is where the story ends for me. Does. Not. Exist.
Epic with their well-known traditional pro-Linux attitude (/s) in combination with artificial scarcity immediately and permanently marks the dev as either greedy or at least, utterly uncaring about how they are perceived.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kokoko3kHow is it possible that I know more than a easycheat dev when it comes to this particular issue, given that I'm not a dev?

Right?
Instead of people shouting "glibc broke my games" they should instead shout "Anticheat broke my game", that's what's actually wrong here.

But more to the point, I can definitely see Epic intentionally playing dumb. It hurts Linux, which they hate, and it hurts their competitor, which they certainly don't have much love for, either. And in the end, it's a simple fix where they can shine and bask in their glory as the saviours of both.
That may be a bit over the top, but still... keep that in mind.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: evasbThe greatest weakness of Linux (some say that it is a strength) is not having its own libc. I would like to see Linux being the maintainer of glibc and refusing to break in every release and put the blame in the developer.

That's like saying Linux should maintain its own distribution.

There are alternatives on every end of the spectrum. Some people are happy with the GNU libc, others are happy with systemd, some are happy with both, and even if you're neither, you still have the choice to run musl and sysvinit instead... or something completely different, and *still* not having to leave the Linux ecosystem.

So yes, I do see it as a strength, or maybe part of Linux' immune system, that "Linux" is "GNU/Linux" if and only if you make it so. Or conversely of course, "GNU/Linux" is only as much "Linux" as you make it, if you want to go that route. It's all about freedom of choice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments