Quoting: WorMzyOh well, Microsoft loves Linux right, so presumably all Double Fine releases will now have day one Linux support. \o/

They do love Linux, the server OS that they use for their cloud services. They contribute to the kernel and all. They don't feel threatened by Linux, because they develop a desktop OS and in decades Linux was never able to really compete with Windows on desktop. But they want their desktop OS to be convenient for developers, so that people that develop for servers don't have to use a server OS on their desktops, thus they created WSL. :|

I don't think we will see Microsoft actively push software for Linux any time soon. But I don't think there is going to be any overt hostility against it either - sabotaging Linux probably would have a bigger PR cost than actual strategic gain. They might even allow some software to be ported occasionally (like the crowdfunded games) just because it shouldn't really be a big risk for them; it's not like at this point they need to draw away crowds from Linux to Windows.

Hopefully they are making a big mistake and it costs them everything. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestThere are other hints around, but this is the first time I've seen direct confirmation of my fears. Because of Valve and Proton, and to a lesser degree WINE, this developer isn't giving us support.

Frankly, it seems you are looking very hard for anything that supports your hypothesis. Even if we assume that the remasters were absolutely going to get a port otherwise (by this point, even the main game being ported is uncertain), this is anecdotal evidence.

Of course some developers will change their minds, or at least use this as an excuse. How many would that have to be to outweight the benefits of Steamplay?

QuoteTo Valve: You're hurting Linux gaming by taking away our Linux support and strengthening Microsoft's stranglehold. You're also hurting competitors like GOG, itch.io, Humble, etc by telling Linux gamers to pay for Windows games and playing them in completely unsupported ways. You're helping turn Linux gaming into 2nd class gaming where gamers no longer have normal 1st class support, updates can break things at any moment, new releases cannot be relied upon to work (no pre-orders either), and reviews of games aren't warranted when developers never claimed to support playing the game on Linux through WINE/Proton in the first place. That is not something any gamer wants their platform to turn into, and yet you and greedy Microsoft are making progress in doing so and in selling Windows gaming to Linux gamers.

We do not accept this. Krome Studios will not see any of our money until they provide us with Linux support, nor will any other developer or publisher. We will not be 2nd class gamers. We will not support the Microsoft monopoly by supporting Windows gaming. We demand to be treated as equal normal gamers by being given full support from the developers. Developers have to earn our money by providing us with support in return like everyone else gets.

I mean... you are blaming Valve, of all companies, of hurting Linux gaming. One of the most Linux-friendly platforms, that due to its size has done so much over the years to make Linux a better option. Blaming them for creating something that helps Linux players immensely and that has resulted in more games working perfectly on Linux than any single porting company or publisher has ever ported - and that is supposing we don't see additional benefits and more stuff from Valve in the future (it is still in beta!).

Steamplay is great for Linux gaming, because it is great for Linux players: they can play a lot more games right off the bat, the immense majority of which would never gain official Linux support, and in many cases much more easily. This is one of the main goals - make playing games on Linux easier and better and have more games. Pushing official ports is only useful so far as it helps with those goals. We can speculate on indirect effects (whether it will increase adoption, reduce "full" ports, do the opposite of either, whatever). But the direct effect is already huge.

And this is a good excuse to post this article I recently read and found really relevant regarding Wine and compatibility layers: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, inXile is just very full of bullshit. The kickstarter page for Bard's Tale 4 has a really passionate text about how they loved crowdfunding in all their projects and having a publisher sucks ("crowdfunding is how games are supposed to be made"). Of course, now that they got bought by a huge studio it apparently is great. And all their updates about how the ports were top priority, then about how well they were going, then not so well, then a lot of other things that had to come first... if they don't delay it again (which they certainly can), it will be just over one year late.

As for the remastered old games: everything so far indicated that they were not going to support Linux at all. And, well, they won't. If they didn't mention SteamPlay it wouldn't even be a surprise. But, yeah, unsurprisingly they are full of bullshit. Whether they use Proton or they create another version is a small difference, but unless they offer actual support (with actual testing and committing to fix any bugs) they are just ignoring Linux users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlI think complex simulation should be the real benefit of cloud gaming. Pushing more pixels per second? Local PC hardware handles that better and better every year. How much photorealism do we really need? At some point we won't see any difference, while server clusters is an overkill for that purpose.

And this heavy bend on graphics is really weird, given how many interesting things in gaming are underdeveloped. Strategy is more straightforward sure, but imagine something more complicated. Such as simulating climate, or a biological ecosystem, or simulating NPC behavior not based on predefined scripts, but on their self learning driven by in-game interactions. It's surprising these kind of ideas aren't yet applied more widely in gaming, with all this push for the cloud.

I personally agree very, very much. There is so much that could be done, and what is actually done (graphics-wise) sometimes is so meaningless. But the market is weird.

And frankly, more complex simulations don't always result in differences we can see. There are interesting possibilities, but in a sense people approach simulation in a much more logical way than graphics - with sensible trade-offs between performance and complexity and considerations between how much that impacts actual enjoyment of the game...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlTo develop this idea, I think more computing power would be needed for some sophisticated AI, not for better visuals. A cluster of multiple servers would run some AI algorithm surely more effectively, than any local PC. In this sense, imagine a game that simulates more realistic behavior, not "presents visuals more realistically". There is some quite interesting potential for gaming there, that's far from being tapped yet.

That is be a really intriguing idea. I am quite curious about the application of "real" AI (machine learning) into making better and more fun computer-controlled adversaries (something that is somewhat important in strategy games, for example). AlphaStar (Google's Starcraft-playing AI) is a really interesting project, for example... and I'm sure hardware would be a limiting factor (it already is, to a certain point). And detailed simulations in general can also be ridiculously heavy, and are if anything easier to make than lighter ones; things like city builders that model vehicles/people individually on humongous maps.

But I am afraid this is something in the realm of speculation only for several years at best... while the current model of game development has been in place for years, and graphics (the high-fidelity, photorealistic, super-heavy 3d kind) are a much more immediate concern. Games that require high-end hardware for sophisticated mechanics might arise to benefit from cloud gaming, or might push us in another direction entirely, but I don't think they are going to define the services and products in the short term.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleSo gamers spend hundreds of dollars on multi-GPU rigs just to squeeze a few extra frames out of their games - and people now expect them to tolerate completely unnecessary and completely unavoidable lag in their games, and dedicate a big portion of their bandwith to streaming a game they could play in much better quality locally? Apparently gamers don't mind spending money on hardware, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

On the other end of the spectrum, casual games run on the same low-end machines you'd still need to stream games on anyway.

I don't even get who game streaming is targeted at. It seems to make zero sense for all possible audiences.

Well, there is the audience of the people who are just bellow those crazies; they aren't quite willing to spend that much money, but want those AAA graphics and those easy to quantify quality indicators like "4k 60fps". Or the crazies that spent a ton of money and can stream last year's games with perfect graphics, but would need an upgrade to get the new hotness.

There are also people who are willing (and capable) of paying for incredible internet speeds for online games or something, and now can use that instead of replacing their high end rigs every few months.

There are also the casual and/or low-end players that want to run that one heavy game besides their normal stuff, but don't want to get new hardware just for that.

And of course, there are all the people that can be tricked by marketing, the people that jump into every new thing, the people that see the deceptively small but recurrent price...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, it mostly confirmed what I already knew: I have zero interest in the kind of games they will offer (well, a remote chance I'd someday maybe want to play a little bit of BG3), my internet connection couldn't take it if I wanted to and online-only play would be a joke, my country isn't supported (probably for those reasons), and games announced for Stadia have been announced/sold as Windows-only on Steam (but I'm already happy they are on Steam at all). The games I usually play, with a few exceptions, wouldn't really benefit; I get by decently with Intel HD4000 graphics after all. So, Stadia is more of a curiosity than anything of relevance for me personally.

That said, it isn't as bad as it could be. Subscription is not outrageous by trying to mix the actual service with the catalogue, and there is even a free version that is very capable. You gain access to specific games by paying only once and not constantly, and you can pick individual games. Oh, and games don't seem to be exclusive so far. It's still really bad though; online-only single-player games, I assume games bought can't be played outside of the service, you probably would need to re-buy the games, there are severe regional limitations, and while it allows savings in graphics cards it has extra costs in internet services and the subscription itself.

My probably unpopular opinion is that if high-end computers to play those games are really a big limiting factor (enough to justify this kind of service), developers should just make lighter games. Those expensive and heavy graphics AAA games use aren't meaningless, but are absolutely not worth it; games from 10 years ago still look more than good enough, and artsy indies look better than any big titles and run on potatoes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: eldakingAndroid runs on a Linux kernel, but not only is it incompatible with GNU/Linux but they have moved as much as they could into their own proprietary app suite to make it harder to distribute a non-Google version.

As far as I know, you can install GNU utils on your Android device. Android has it's own DE and uses a lot of stuff that is not common on desktop installs, but that doesn't mean that the kernel is not compatible. Non-Google versions do exist in many variations. You can't install software that depends on Google Services, though. But that's up to the developer of the software.

They use different standard libraries (especially libc). It has the Linux kernel, but not the rest of the GNU operating system; it is a completely different OS (that share the kernel).

There are custom Android versions (I myself use Lineage OS), and it is technically possible to remove google apps. It is, however, a major limitation to not have them, and removes many of the advantages of using Android. You lose access to a large portion of apps and many of the most useful features of the OS. The proprietary parts serve to make non-Google versions of the "open source" OS not compatible with the Google versions, make it much harder to fork the OS or change some elements (as you would need to rebuild a lot of core functionality instead of just changing what you want). And the proprietary parts enable Google to sign restrictive contracts with manufacturers and carriers, that restrict them from releasing their own versions in a way that shouldn't be possible with free software.

My point is that the idea that Stadia using Linux will translate to games for Linux desktops isn't very sure. Just like Android having the Linux kernel doesn't translate into Android apps being available for mobile versions of GNU/Linux. It is not only possible, but maybe in Google's interest, to make them not compatible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think a nice point that was hinted at the discussion is how Google likes to close down their platforms despite using "open source" software. Android runs on a Linux kernel, but not only is it incompatible with GNU/Linux but they have moved as much as they could into their own proprietary app suite to make it harder to distribute a non-Google version. It is a big example of the distinction between the "open source" and "free software" philosophies: they actively work against user choice and interoperability.

We may hope that the move to Vulkan and Linux builds for stadia will help push desktop versions of games. But software made for Android and OpenGL doesn't exactly work on desktop GNU/Linux... and I don't think Google will be interested in making sure the games built for Stadia will work outside of it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

QuoteThat was a problem I've had with other expansions and updates, with Paradox adding in late-game options but here that's not an issue.

I think that was because the mid and late game was quite boring early in the game's life. The early game was incredible, all the exploration, defining your empire with tech choices and the tense diplomacy and wars... and then we used to kind of run out of stuff to do. Now that they fixed that, it seems they are back to adding stuff to the early game (that by now we have played over and over again :P).

View this comment - View article - View full comments