Well, one interesting thing from my perspective I would like to point out: as a dedicated fan of single player strategy games, the two games I'm interested in are also the two games that have native Linux builds. The other game that fits my interests (but that I didn't enjoy) is rated Platinum on ProtonDB.

The same goes for the vast, vast majority of the games I play (strategy, management, simulation, a few puzzles and the rare adventure/visual novel/rpg). With a few exceptions, gaming on Linux is already a solved problem for me. Steamplay already works well enough to fill the most conspicuous holes, performance is rarely a big concern, there is no anti-cheat, and the biggest games have native support.

I mean, of course there is space for improvement. But comparatively, Linux gaming varies a lot depending on genre and category. The real issue is with AAA action games and with multiplayer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Regarding "people wouldn't buy those anyway": having a game on your wishlist is free marketing for developers. You see that game every time you go into the wishlist (while you might not see it otherwise), get informed about sales and releases, and they get some data out of it. This is the equivalent of many people hitting the "ignore" button on the store: maybe they wouldn't all buy, but there is a lot less people seeing your game, so people that could be convinced won't see it anymore. For big games that people are sure to see anyway, or remember later, no big deal; for small games, this means a lot. People that added a game to the wishlist are already a bit more likely to buy the game, so the idea that none of the people that removed the games was ever going to buy any of them is a bit unlikely. And this is anomalous.

That said, I kind of like this sale. I think that rewarding people for playing some games instead of just for buying games (that end up never being played) or for playing a clicker is better. I think that the removal of trading cards and the economy involved is actually good - microtransactions with random drops of collectibles aren't the best thing for a store. Gifting games instead is a better solution, even if it is a lottery.

The team competition aspect could certainly be improved (but it is not horrible, just meaningless). The idea of having teams is intriguing, but in the end there is so little interaction with other people (and I'm not sure I'd like more) that it hardly matters. I think it would work better if instead they took games of the same genre and similar playerbases and put them to compete, for example.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I am probably a nightmare for people tracking wishlists, as I am constantly adding and removing games and reordering. Right now I have Linux games (ranked by preference) on top, then DLC for games I already play, then Linux early access games, then Windows games I hope might either get a port or work with Steamplay (being on the wishlist signals interest in a Linux version, after all), then Windows early access games, then finally games I can't run on my current computer but would like to play one day. I was going to stop adding stuff once I got to 100, but with the sale I just shortened it a bit. :P

But regarding these events in particular: it seems like a really bad side effect of the event. There is the obvious "if we are gifting games should be something people would like" and the benign manipulation of "look at your wishlist, order it, use it". But if people are removing games, that is kind of bad for indies that don't appear as often to you so they might end up ignored.

Best case scenario, people were just reminded to organize their wishlists and the games removed were things they wouldn't be going to buy. Worst case scenario, they removed indie games they might otherwise buy to leave the more "valuable" AAA games to focus on prizes - or just because the event unwittingly calls attention to having a short wishlist with just the most wanted games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: eldaking

Quoting: F.UltraNo I didn't say that others did such stuff all the time. What I said was that in the real world companies announce their plans, then they await comments from users and partners to see how said plans will be received after which the plans are either amended or put into production.

The problem here is that the Linux fanbase decided to see the announcement of plans as a foregone conclusion and then run around screaming.

When they "announced" this years ago, did they set a date? Was it fully decided and plotted out? How much did they broadcast their intentions so that people could prepare their transition?

Or was their announcement now still just a "plan" to be discussed, despite the fact the changes takes effect in a few months?

Everyone was surprised by this because information was not communicated clearly enough and in advance enough. Yeah, we are probably overstating the impact... but this a panic Canonical created.

Here is the initial announcement from last year: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2018-May/040310.html so it was just one year ago and not years as I first claimed (shame on me there).

edit: further research shows that they also made an announcement back in 2016: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2016-June/039420.html

OK, so those are not official announcements, those are discussions. In their mailing list, so they didn't communicate this to the general public. In the 2018 e-mail, which is a proposal and not a final word, they mostly talk about dropping the image, about hardware support, and that the first step should be dropping the image (which I think everyone agrees). No timeline is given to drop multilib other than "we should eventually do it", no final decision is reached (on that one e-mail at least). On the 2016 e-mail, it is actually discussed dropping the libraries and surprisingly a tentative timeline is given. It is still only a suggestion, with plenty of questions asked, and the timeline was obviously discarded (it should drop compatibility on 18.10).

So no, not communicated clearly and in advance.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraNo I didn't say that others did such stuff all the time. What I said was that in the real world companies announce their plans, then they await comments from users and partners to see how said plans will be received after which the plans are either amended or put into production.

The problem here is that the Linux fanbase decided to see the announcement of plans as a foregone conclusion and then run around screaming.

When they "announced" this years ago, did they set a date? Was it fully decided and plotted out? How much did they broadcast their intentions so that people could prepare their transition?

Or was their announcement now still just a "plan" to be discussed, despite the fact the changes takes effect in a few months?

Everyone was surprised by this because information was not communicated clearly enough and in advance enough. Yeah, we are probably overstating the impact... but this a panic Canonical created.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, this was announced faster than I thought, but is exactly what I expected: 19.10 will make the change, but for 20.04 they will revert to the "consolidated" system.

They have already suffered some hard to revert damage to trust in Ubuntu; people aware of the entire situation are not likely to be as eager to recommend Ubuntu to newbies or developers. But this is the best they could do after the announcement - it looks like a rushed and careless decision, but at least not rushed, careless, stubborn and out of touch. I think the worst part was how sudden it was; if they had announced this several years in advance, it might not be a good choice but 1) people could transition in various ways 2) we would not be afraid of what else might change overnight.

As for deprecating 32 bit "in the future"... mainstream Linux distros should at least wait until Windows does the same and developers stop developing 32-bit code for good. Then we could think about alternatives that were transparent enough for users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mal

Quoting: finaldestThe biggest issue with any PC exclusive is that the game in question is locked to a specific launcher. If I could use any launcher or no launcher at all to download and play the game then the affect would be minimal. With EPIC for example, All Linux users are locked out before even entering the gates.

Careful here. Claiming that Steam, EGS, Origin and such are "just launchers" is part of Sweeney narrative. If you consider them just libraries of link to .exe for games that run on windows it's easy to agree with Sweeney that gamers are just being lazy and they just have get used to have more launchers as publishers do their dirty stuff at their back.

But Steam it's not just a launcher. It's indeed a platform that comes with several features many of which Steam itself brought into gaming first (like cloud saves and controller profiles). And as any platform it strives to hide the implementation details. That what steam play is all about: it should be transparent to you if you're gaming on windows, or mac or linux. While stuff like proton and vulkan try to bring this on developer side.

When you play a game on Steam, like it or not, you have a different experience. That makes a ton of difference in this matter. When Tim is left free to establish his narrative (basically always) he never admits that EGS and Steam are platforms or services. On the contrary he claims they are just launchers and that Windows is the platform and so 30% tax is not justifiable from Steam and that for gamers it changes nothing so they should just stay quiet and get raped. He's establishing a frame where where he's right and we're not. Then ofc even in his frame the man is plenty of inconsistencies. Like when he's ok with Apple having 30% tax on iStore because they made the platform so they deserve it, but then on Android he works to bring EGS to break the unfair toll. Ofc the only actual difference between the two ecosystems is that one is closed and doesn't allow competition while the other is open. But today his target is only Steam.

Also if you accept Sweeney narrative that Steam and EGS are just storefronts then it means that there is no platform nor a service to invest on. If your vision for your enterprise in this world is just to sell stuff by undercutting your competition, why should you invest on making better the ecosystem? There is no ecosystem int he first place! It would just add your costs without giving you and your millionaire publisher friends any additional monetary benefit. Especially when you can just grab users by pursuing lucrative exclusives. Which only come with the minor side effect of forcing a player to look for their .exes under a different launcher. But in exchange grants them the highly educational experience of paying more due to the payment method they use in their country.

Agreed. People keep defending Epic with "just using another launcher isn't a big deal", but ignore all the differences between platforms - including features of the client or the store, but also policies regarding all sorts of things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The theme is intriguing, but I'm not sure how it will work. Will it feel like controlling a single "unit", or like having a mobile base, or like a squad moving through the map? How will economy work - will there be resource collection or just "capture special goals" or just experience from combat? That is going to determine how interested I would be in the game. Still, nice premise for a game, I'll watch it with interest.

Also, Windows pre-reqs say "no Intel onboard graphics", but for Linux and Mac it specifically lists an Intel GPU. I'm hoping it is correct.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

QuoteActually I think WINE is the one hope for breaking the cycle. If most PC games were automatically compatible with Linux, it would greatly increase the viability of Linux as a consumer platform.

He is just full of shit. What he is actually saying is "I think Linux is not viable. I want my games to work automatically without putting any effort. There is no way you are going to make me support Linux except by doing all the work for me."

For us, Wine is great because it is the only alternative. Without access to the source code or funds to pay for a port, we need Wine to run software. For someone that has complete control over the development, is establishing an entire new platform and pouring money egregiously into that, even putting effort/money towards Wine isn't good enough. At least make the damn store client (that I heard uses electron, even) run natively so that people can use Wine. They have an engine (literally own the engine) that supposedly abstracts away the OS, so port your flagship game to Linux (there is even a mobile version already) - especially because it won't work with Wine due to anti-cheat. Steam started putting money into Wine after they exhausted their options to support Linux themselves (with the client, their own games, they even made their own distro).

QuoteI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?

Before we start on moral principles, I'd like to point people are against it in great part by practical reasons. Neither the lower cut, the guaranteed sales (or direct payments) are for the benefit of customers - they are only good for the publishers and developers. For a customer, there is no added value in buying at the Epic Store, only disadvantages. And before someone says that developers will lower prices or invest more in their games, I'd like to point out we already know it does not. Games were already being pre-ordered on Steam or crowdfunded, did their prices decrease? No. Those games were already at the end of development, all fully funded before, no significant changes. For Phoenix Point, we know that when they got the money they just gave the shareholders a bonus, and the infamous quote that they didn't care if backers refunded the game because they would still be in the blue. So, no advantages for players. On the other hand, many people directly benefit from Steam features. So with exclusives publishers/developers are acting against customer's interests and Epic is actively pushing that agenda - it is only rational people get mad. Sure, it might be rational to take the money or to offer the money to gain market share, but it is also rational for players to boycott and campaign against it.

As for the moral principle: anti-competitive practices. Trying to corner competitors out of the market is wrong. They are actively using their money to harm a competitor, which is wrong.

"But Steam is too big, we can't compete unless we use dirty tactics." Well, then either your product is simply not good enough and Valve deserves its position or the free market does not work for digital game stores and we need regulation to guarantee competition. Or a mix of both; pick your economic theory. There are certainly positive externalities that Steam is not paying for (network benefits) and it might count as a natural monopoly. But what we can't have is rich people doing wrong things for some supposed greater good, especially when those things harm smaller competitors.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They are backtracking; there is no way this is what they had intended all along. They suggested using containers or snaps for those apps, tested some games without 32 bit libraries, everything they said contradicts this stance.

And this statement is still vague enough that it could mean they will use containers or something as a way of including those "frozen 32 bit libraries".

View this comment - View article - View full comments