Quoting: dibz

Quoting: EagleDeltaWhich is where part of the issue lies with gaming and Linux. A lot of "vocal" linux users and devs want GameDevs to develop for Linux, but ALSO to conform to what those "vocal" users/devs think is the "right way" and People don't work like that. Linux has to go to THEM and make their lives easy/easier when working with Linux and do so in a way that THEY are familiar with or they will just nope out and not care. And that will happen because the perception is that we, the linux community, don't care about their perspective.... so why should they care about us?

Yeah, one of the best and worst things about Linux is the vocal community. And let's be honest, the people that flock tend to have very strong personalities -- borderline autistic at times. Bad advice is extremely rampant, often times based simply on personal preference OR it puts themselves in a position of power where the advice seeker is forced to continue asking for help. It can be difficult for first timers to tell the difference. On the other hand, if one is able to navigate those waters, it's an amazing community with many different perspectives and often times intelligent reasoned discourse. Heck, look at the comment section on this site sometimes, it's rarely to the point of "requiring moderation" so to speak, but it can get fairly intense at times.

An interesting fact is that the very reason why we can talk about those issues in the first place is precisely because of Linux's open source nature. A Windows user could say "Windows Update broke my toy", but on Linux it's much easier to point out one (group of) person's fault. It is a double edged sword, really. We are a very tech-savy, software engineering curious community, but like every enthusiast population, we can have very strong-minded opinions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I agree with many clever comments in here.
I don't know if anyone is right or wrong on this particular topic, but it shows one thing: Linux on the desktop is several products pieced together (hence why it's called a "distribution") so sometimes when a project goes its own way (and rightly so, it's their own work we're talking about), the other actors of said Linux desktop don't always take the time or resources to work on the issues that could potentially come from it (and rightly so, for the exact same reason).

I think it's part of how things are on Linux, it's not necessarily good or bad, I learned to live with it as a matter of fact. Things could certainly be improved though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: omer666

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: CyrilWell, this is not really a GOG/Galaxy issue here, the devs just refused to release the Linux version as single player only on GOG, they could do it but didn't want to.
It would have been better than nothing, the devs of Northgard did that.
Plus, don't forget that the macOS version is missing on GOG too, so what is the excuse then?
Guys, don't get it wrong... the devs are not trustworthy.

I don't agree at all. I think it's a fine decision not to release a cut-down version on a store because that store can't support it fully, the developer is well within their rights not to so they don't provide a sub-par experience for users. Saying the developer isn't trustworthy because they don't want to be on a particular store is ridiculous.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. They're not trustworthy because of the lack of the macOS version too, but we, as Linux users, just are focusing on Galaxy problem... It just seems hypocrisy for me.
And what if I don't care about multiplayer? Personally I would be happy to just play the game in single mode...
But in the end, I think we can agree that the devs should have use something else to rely on for the multiplayer, something more "store-neutral".

That is more complicated for smaller devs, that's why they rely on each store's online services. It is not something new, in the past devs used GameSpy extensively to avoid upkeep cost of servers and infrastructure. Most of the time those services were not available outside Windows, and Mac users for example had to rely on GameRanger

It's pretty simple: tell me why they didn't release the macOS version on GOG even though Galaxy is available on macOS?
Linux users: "It's Galaxy fault!"
So what should say macOS users then?

I don't know, and I don't care.
I was only replying to the part about a "store-neutral" multiplayer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: CyrilWell, this is not really a GOG/Galaxy issue here, the devs just refused to release the Linux version as single player only on GOG, they could do it but didn't want to.
It would have been better than nothing, the devs of Northgard did that.
Plus, don't forget that the macOS version is missing on GOG too, so what is the excuse then?
Guys, don't get it wrong... the devs are not trustworthy.

I don't agree at all. I think it's a fine decision not to release a cut-down version on a store because that store can't support it fully, the developer is well within their rights not to so they don't provide a sub-par experience for users. Saying the developer isn't trustworthy because they don't want to be on a particular store is ridiculous.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. They're not trustworthy because of the lack of the macOS version too, but we, as Linux users, just are focusing on Galaxy problem... It just seems hypocrisy for me.
And what if I don't care about multiplayer? Personally I would be happy to just play the game in single mode...
But in the end, I think we can agree that the devs should have use something else to rely on for the multiplayer, something more "store-neutral".

That is more complicated for smaller devs, that's why they rely on each store's online services. It is not something new, in the past devs used GameSpy extensively to avoid upkeep cost of servers and infrastructure. Most of the time those services were not available outside Windows, and Mac users for example had to rely on GameRanger

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tohur

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Mountain ManIt should be obvious by now that GoG simply doesn't care if Linux users buy from them or not.

I know but I can always hope.

why would you want to give anyone your money that lacks the care in the world about you. they don't want your money so why fight to give it to them thats insanity

Linux users in general tend to agree with the basic foundations of GOG, which is no DRM and owning your copy of the game. That's why Linux gamers keep hoping that they change their strategy.
Considering the dire economical situation at GOG it wouldn't hurt to be at least a bit more attractive to Linux gamers, but they simply don't give a damn about it.
That's what is so infuriating about this: the missed opportunity.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: omer666If this is the case, they *may* end up writing an open-source Vulkan driver for it, which would allow us to have OpenGL thanks to Zink. That would be our best hope for now... Provided you've got a compatible GPU

OpenGL for Nvidia on top of nouveau already exists in Mesa even without Zink. It's called nvc0 (rather obscure name, but radeonsi isn't much better either).

https://mesamatrix.net [External Link]

Click "Driver details" under "OpenGL" there.

Yes but who knows if it will be able to work with Nvidia's kernel driver...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: STiATHmh, and Joshua Ashton is already fixing bugs in the driver looking at the merge requests. So Valve seems to want to involve themselves there too.

If this is the case, they *may* end up writing an open-source Vulkan driver for it, which would allow us to have OpenGL thanks to Zink. That would be our best hope for now... Provided you've got a compatible GPU

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestanyone knows if this module will work with Legacy GPUs??

No it won't, Turing architecture is a minimal requirement.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I am really happy with this decision.
With all three main GPU brands supporting open-source kernel drivers, Linux will be at a better place than it ever was.

Now we have to wait and see when it becomes a reality...

[Edit] Okay, I've been reading a bit more, and it's not that big of a deal... there will be no integration to Mesa, and OpenGL/Vulkan drivers in themselves will stay proprietary. We'll see how it turns out in the coming years, but it may not be the big news everybody's been waiting for.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This looks amazing!

View this comment - View article - View full comments