While AMD should get all the kudos and headstart from releasing their open-source cross-vendor scaling tech first, I hope Nvidia's similar one will also ultimately get integrated for those developers that want to use movement vectors to help their scaling. It would be a shame for that use case to only be covered by DLSS.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Universe Sandbox is still Early Access, too, I think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's been on my wishlist since GOL first mentioned it. Looking forward to playing it on the Deck.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: undeadbydawnI remain disproportionally irritated that discounts are given as '-n% off', which means a price increase

Good news: here it's a hyphen rather than a minus sign - it says "<game> - n% off" rather than "-n% off" - and on Steam it just says -n%. So you don't need to be annoyed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: a0kamiI know DMABUF was quite a big deal for a while on nvidia GPU.

But I ended up changing side for an amd card.
Are amd also concerned by this dmabuf or is it specific to nvidia ? If not specific to nvidia, am I correct to assume the openness of radv helped getting it supported ages ago.

Nvidia had work a decade ago on dma-buf, but kernel developers decided that they wanted that interface to be GPL-only. So then Nvidia spent a couple of years reworking it to use fences, which wasn't GPL-only, and then kernel developers decided that they wanted to make fences GPL-only as well. I'm not sure exactly what happened after that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYou are again arguing the strawman that Valve makes better use of their excessive cuts than others do.
How nice. Not the point, not argued against by anyone. Stop it.

Cost+investment+profit would be a perfectly acceptable basis for funding even if Steam were the regulated utility that Purple Library Guy was contemplating.

You've still made no argument that Valve's share is "excessive" other than that developers want more money.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNo, the argument is that developers deserve more money from their sales.

Oh, my bad: developers really want more money.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe 30% is quite likely not justified if you think about Steam like a traditional utility

Why?

There was an analysis I read relatively recently, based on the figures released through the Epic vs Apple trial (I'll include the link if I happen to find it again) that had Valve's break-even point at around a 20% cut, and GOG's at around 25%. Valve's cut is 20-30%, depending on your sales, and they provide a whole lot in exchange. You can get similar services (although arguably not as good) from Sony - who take 30% or Microsoft (again, arguably not as good) - who take 30%. And Valve have invested the money that they've made into the PC gaming ecosystem. Would there be as much money made by developers as easily now if there had been only GameSpy working on only cost-covering margins since 2003?

The only argument ever presented is that developers want more money. And they'll always want more money, whatever the level were set at.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestValve don't really provide marketing

They have millions of pairs of eyeballs they can put your game in front of, and they've invested heavily in putting it in front of the eyeballs of customers that are likely to buy your game, as well as providing detailed sales data about which regions are interested in your game and when interest is generated. If you have a better term for that than "marketing," please share.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPDid Valve develop or market that game? No. They host its data and provide some (good) service around it

They provide quite a lot of marketing, actually. But it's simple: if you don't feel that Steam provides sufficient value, don't put your game on Steam. If all you want is packaging and distribution, use Itch; they are amazing at that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIt's an argument about if developers should be the ones to pay for all of Valve's extracurricular efforts.

Developers aren't paying for anything, customers are. The $100 that developers pay is minimalistic gatekeeping, it doesn't fund anything. If developers don't want to make use of the benefits that Valve provides they can always just use Itch and take up to 100% of the money that customers pay.

View this comment - View article - View full comments