Quoting: jib_for

Quoting: hell0They got €32k out of their kickstarter. Being based in France, a quick search suggests a monthly salary of around 2500€ would be reasonable. With just 2 people full time, they would be out of funds after 6 months. As if that wasn't bad enough, it appears they hired more people and even external consultants (source: their kickstarter updates).

Pretty likely that their publisher put several hundred thousands on the table before cutting their losses, not sure they deserve the flak they're getting. I for one wouldn't buy an unknown game IP with its half finished prototype for even €1000.

10-19 employees, with a gross yearly revenue of 714 900€ for the company, you know how much the publisher put money on the game. This is public data you can found here: https://www.societe.com/societe/studio-black-flag-793709577.html [External Link]

Simple math would tell an average gross yearly salary around 36.000€ per employee (for 19 employees), which is above the average in France, based on the fact it was a cooperative, salaries should have been flat. However, a big part could have been used to pay some third-parties, so the salary may have been lower

Had no idea it was public, thanks for digging it up! It sucks for the people who lost their job, but I really can't fault the investor(s) for not wanting to cough up 700k/year if they thought the project was going nowhere.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They got €32k out of their kickstarter. Being based in France, a quick search suggests a monthly salary of around 2500€ would be reasonable. With just 2 people full time, they would be out of funds after 6 months. As if that wasn't bad enough, it appears they hired more people and even external consultants (source: their kickstarter updates).

Pretty likely that their publisher put several hundred thousands on the table before cutting their losses, not sure they deserve the flak they're getting. I for one wouldn't buy an unknown game IP with its half finished prototype for even €1000.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WORM

The enclave is essentially intended to be a way for us to PGP-sign packages with a single signing key instead of how we do it right now, which is with one personal key per packager.

My assumption is this requires building on build servers instead of building on maintainers' machines like they currently do.

Not necessarily. In all likelihood, the enclave will not decide whether it should sign off a package on its own. Which means there should be a way for maintainers to say "this package is authorised and should be signed". This can be done in many ways, including maintainers uploading packages they built themselves (and signed with their own key) to the enclave.

To be clear: they will likely want to move builds to dedicated servers for various reasons, but having an enclave does not make it a hard requirement.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: minidou

Quoting: hell0I'm wondering whether their cheat detection is server side. Some wording let me think it might be: "detection levels", "turn on the banning of users in a couple of days after the update".

I believe Valve would be the first big company to attempt it, and it could be huge if they do it properly.

VAC has always been server side and there are many other anticheat that are server side on some level

I was refering specifically to cheat detection being performed server side, with no reliance on the client whatsoever.

All big names anti-cheats on the market today -VAC included- rely entirely on the client to perform the detection. Some kind of handshake with the server is included to confirm the anti-cheat has been run, but that's about it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm wondering whether their cheat detection is server side. Some wording let me think it might be: "detection levels", "turn on the banning of users in a couple of days after the update".

I believe Valve would be the first big company to attempt it, and it could be huge if they do it properly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I hope some day a law is passed somewhere relevant which forces all anti-cheats to be optional opt-in systems. Just like Europe did with third party cookies. I'd argue it would make a lot of sense - even outside linux gaming - as the way most anti-cheats operate is akin to spywares.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechieI see no hope in this.
RISC-V has an even less functional software ecosystem, so it's useless for most consumers.
Although the architecture of RISC-V is open source the firmware isn't yet and some ARM processors do offer open firmware making them more suited for tinkering, because making or manipulating your own chips requires a lot more resources than doing the same with firmware meaning its out of the range of most tinkerers.

These devices are exactly what is needed for the software ecosystem to progress. There is only so much a software developper can do without testing his work on an actual device. It's definitely not for the masses yet.

Keep in mind, ARM is over 40 years old (project started in 1983) and x86 was released in 1978 (probably in the work a while before that).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I am so glad to see RISC-V slowly but steadily making its way to a broader audience.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: sprocket

Quoting: hell0

Quoting: sprocket#2 on the other hand, I've never really considered it much, but I don't know if it's a strong enough problem. And if the lawsuit wins on this ground, it will cause all sorts of headaches for developers who publish their games on multiple platforms. This isn't the CD-ROM era anymore, after all.

Just realised that it also happen to be flat out wrong: case [External Link] in [External Link] point [External Link].

These provide Steam codes, which still requires you having bought the game on Steam in the first place. You won't be able to use these DLC codes if you bought these games on GOG or Epic.

You are indeed correct, but in my opinion having to use the code through steam is quite different to what they claim (which is that you have to purchase the dlc directly from steam).

A world in which one could transfer their games from one store to another or cross-install DLCs would be pretty great. I doubt it will happen on its own or any time soon though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: sprocket#2 on the other hand, I've never really considered it much, but I don't know if it's a strong enough problem. And if the lawsuit wins on this ground, it will cause all sorts of headaches for developers who publish their games on multiple platforms. This isn't the CD-ROM era anymore, after all.

Just realised that it also happen to be flat out wrong: case [External Link] in [External Link] point [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments