Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Guest... I've always been leery of linking my Steam account with others. Call me paranoid; 99.8% of the time it probably is.

I totally get your point, I feel the same, but for Paradox, I can make an exception. :wink:

This said, it seems there is a problem somewhere in the email process... Can't get the SteamGuard pin email, when I try to connect to my account. It seems it's getting lost somewhere and my email is not the issue, I tested it. Guess I'll try later.

As a workaround, you could try enabling two factor authentication (Steam Guard) and using the mobile app for this. You can just disable it afterwards.

EDIT: Well I guess you've already enabled 2FA, but the mobile app is still an option.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWhy another account :-( I will skip this then... and I don't like these additional launchers anyway.

This one is just for the website. The DLC will be added to your Steam account.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I already had my account set up (must have been quite a while as I don't even remember setting up that account) and Steam account linked (public profile), but I only see Stellaris in my games list on the Paradox account. I do own Cities: Skylines on Steam, and Battletech as well. I wonder if there's a problem?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI annoy them because I disagree with them, won't back down from my views (or pretend to) prefer honest and direct words instead of buttering up or keeping my mouth shut if I disagree with anyone and call them out on their shenanigans.

I disagree. I mean, your needlessly argumentative tone is probably part of it, but they're not annoyed because you're "honest". They probably do disagree with you about them being weak minded whiners though. I don't know about you but people don't usually enjoy being talked down to.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'd bet my other kidney that if I showed 100% the same kind of tone and behavior and everything else - but actually agreed with them on whatever the topic, they would not have taken even closely that much of an issue with it.

Well yeah, if you didn't insult them they probably wouldn't have found you nearly as annoying. Funny thing, that. They probably would have pointed out personal attacks towards someone though, judging by their past behaviour.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPJust look at all the jabs thrown at "gamers" in the posts - none of which were any better or worse than mine.

Any quotes? Worst I saw was some generic criticism of certain very visible aspects of what people call "gamer culture", and someone saying they don't want to be associated with that group. No personal insults or anything. Whereas your insults were quite personal.

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: tuubiYour smarter-than-thou attitude and talk of bubbles might hold some merit if these people weren't simply blocking some random dude with an abrasive manner on a forum. It just does not matter. They have better things to do. It's like walking away from an obnoxious loudmouth in a pub. He/she doesn't necessarily deserve an audience.

Eh, the majority of things I comment on an article is on-topic and not related to any poster. As it was in this thread, before the usual subjects got oh-so-attacked by my small remark calling out their "online people mean!" whining.

They complain about something, you don't agree, so you complain about them with an insult-cherry on top. Who won?

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: tuubiNow, if they were getting all their news exclusively from sources they happen to agree with, that would be an actual problem.

That's pretty much a given with people like that.

People like what? People who get annoyed if you insult them? Or just people you disagree with?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPOf course, it is always excused with "not worth my time" - the easy way out if you run out of arguments or never had any to begin with.

Internet arguments are mostly a waste of time. Hard to argue against that. A proper, productive discussion is one thing, but those are very rare and easy to spot early on. And they rarely involve insults.

Then there's entertaining banter, but that usually only happens between people who don't actually dislike each other. Anything that's neither entertaining nor productive is probably not worth your time.

I doubt anybody bothered reading all that, but in case someone got this far: I don't mind calling myself a gamer, for the same reason Eike does it. But it's almost exclusively as part of "Linux gamer". I also call myself a coder and a slacker. My wife occasionally calls me other things that end in "r", but I'd rather not repeat those here. :whistle:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPOr, if that fails, block people for disagreeing with them. Yet another thing I'd never do.

Have you considered that maybe they block you because they find you annoying, not because they disagree with you? How is blocking a source of irritation a negative thing, if that's all you are to them?

Your smarter-than-thou attitude and talk of bubbles might hold some merit if these people weren't simply blocking some random dude with an abrasive manner on a forum. It just does not matter. They have better things to do. It's like walking away from an obnoxious loudmouth in a pub. He/she doesn't necessarily deserve an audience.

Now, if they were getting all their news exclusively from sources they happen to agree with, that would be an actual problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: EikeWhen comments get just too sheepish, it's time to block. Time is too valuable for such nonsense.

Like clockwork. As fragile as an old fortune cookie.
Those of weak mind will always opt to create a bubble to pretend everyone agrees with them instead of facing the opposition...

1. Those with an inflated ego (like children) always think everybody should be required to listen to their bullshit, and every platform should be made available for them just because they have an opinion.
2. The one with the loudest voice is rarely the one with the strongest mind.
3. Social media platforms are sources of noise, not sources of information. Blocking random internet pests has no downsides.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhlebiacOff topic: is "Bartleby Lawnjelly" a real name?!?

Maybe they're a Unity developer working on Godot under a pseudonym so they don't get caught! ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Hori

Quoting: NanobangI imagine there's some coding reason that whoever came up with it was unable to use the simpler and saner existing word "direct." After all, to un-redirect, as far as I can see, simply means to direct.

But in this particular case, although I don't really know the technicalities, I think your argument could make sense but I still prefer "unredirect".

I'm no graphics expert but I'll take a stab at a justification for this bit of technical jargon. Expect some simplification (or "lies to children" as Pratchett et al. put it in one of the Science of Discworld books).

When people talk of direct rendering, they mean drawing stuff directly on your screen. Now, if you want to do even rudimentary desktop composition, you need to redirect the rendering of your various applications to off-screen buffers, which then get composited onto the screen. And if one of these applications should be able to write directly on the screen and avoid the desktop composition pipeline completely, for performance or other technical reasons, you have to avoid redirecting the rendering of that particular application. Here the redirection is intentionally and actively disabled, or in short, the rendering is "unredirected".

This might absolutely infuriate people who actually know about this stuff, but I'll accept that risk. Corrections welcome. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pinguino

Quoting: tuubiI bet it's all about support. Porting to Linux and supporting on Linux are two different things after all.

Why can't devs just say "We built this on our favorite Linux distro, which we are willing to support. If you want to run it on a different Operating System, you're on your own. Best of luck, though."

You are picturing an indie outfit where game developers make business decisions. Most companies able to command an AAA level budget have a more complex (and less flexible) structure. In their boardrooms catering for a niche market like ours gets easily sidelined in favour of any investment with a bigger projected ROI. Don't know how things work at Codemasters of course.

Although I guess even the assumption that a significant portion of game developers are familiar enough with Linux to pick a favourite distro might be a bit optimistic at this point.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Pinguino

Quoting: EikeIt will [...] not be published alone.

What do you mean by that?

"Standalone" would have been the better word probably.

They have to make it run on Linux to put it on Stadia. But they don't need to adapt it to general desktop usage and publish it. We're not many, so... they might well avoid this.

The amusing thing is, according to a dev at iD, the best way to port to Stadia is to make it work in regular non-Stadia Linux first, then add all the Stadia crap on top of that.

I bet it's all about support. Porting to Linux and supporting on Linux are two different things after all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments