I liked the article not because I agree with the lawsuit (I don't) but because I appreciate Liam's reporting of it.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI've always said that Valve's cut is undeniably too large. I just don't see any legal grounds to lower it - but hey, who knows.

Speaking from long experience in the retail industry, 30% is pretty much standard fair unless you are targeting wholesale business levels (mega corps with big box storefronts like Walmart, Home Depot, Office Depot, Best Buy, etc.). Computer hardware and livestock feed are two areas that I am aware of that operate on wholesale pricing margins. As such, I have absolutely no objections to Valve's commission structure and see no reason why they should be expected to target wholesale margins like the big box mega corps.

We have a consignment programme where I presently work. There are two takeaway points about it. While we are occasionally negotiable depending on the product, the default commission is 30% of retail (we provide shelf space, handle merchandising, collect and remit sales taxes, etc.). We also include a clause encouraging consignors to have the same retail price wherever they sell their products (we don't legally enforce it but we have reserved the option to cancel a consignment contract on these grounds). It simply benefits no one if the consignor is undercutting their own prices (it impacts their sales through us and makes it pointless to provide shelf space for their products).

Like you, I see no legal grounds to force any retailer to change their margin/commission structure. That would be tantamount to price fixing -- which is, AFAIK, illegal in most nations. If you don't like Valve's commission structure, you are free to take your business elsewhere. If you lose sales because you went with a retailer with less exposure but lower commission, the blame rests on your shoulders, not Valve's.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineCompiz ... Wobbly Windows, spinning cubes, fires consuming windows, genie effects when minimising. It was awesome.

Not sure about the other effects, but the first one is available on GNOME,
Compiz windows effect - GNOME Shell Extensions [External Link]
OR,
Compiz Fusion - GTK Window Decorator [External Link]

And on Cinnamon,
Extensions : Wobbly Windows : Cinnamon Spices [External Link]

And on KDE Plasma,
Compiz Fusion - KDE Window Decorator [External Link]

There also appear to be numerous attempts to mod that effect into M$ Windows too ...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Also on GOG and itch.io. No sale pricing on these platforms, however. GOG has confirmed they are being delisted on their platform as well.

Itch.io versions are apparently out of date.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: CaldathrasYet, I am not sure this is entirely GOG's fault. Oftentimes, it seems like the developer is slower to update their Linux packages on GOG than they are on Steam.

It's still GOG's fault. Other platforms got to use the Galaxy SDK to handle uploads and updates; Linux builds they had to use manual FTP and wait for it to be approved on GOG's side. They improved the process somewhat after a number of years, but it's still not as good publishing Linux builds as for other platforms.

Steam just has the same build and update pipeline for all platforms.

You would know better than I would. I see your point...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MarlockPutting it plainly, you can plug a PC to a TV since forever, and all PC games are playable on a typical PC setup (monitor+kbd+mouse on a desk)... but a TV usually means a couch or bed instead of a desk and kbd+mouse doesn't really work on a couch or bed.

If the Steam Machine is meant to compete with consoles, then it's essential that Valve pressures for controller support in its games catalog to improve.

Just to be cheeky, if "forever" is about 25 years, then yea. In those early days, connecting to the TV was not seamless and it was frustrating to have a widescreen TV but only be able to get 4:3 resolutions on it. But, HDMI greatly improved the situation.

Have to say, though, that "kbd+mouse doesn't really work on a couch" was not the case for me. I set the keyboard and mouse up with extension cords on a wooden TV tray and had a great time (I've never been all that comfortable with controllers). Now, I game on a laptop. My comfort level with controllers is likely to change too, as I find they seem to help with the vertigo.

My spouse would never have tolerated my gaming in bed, LoL.

In all seriousness, though, I think that Valve really is targeting the Steam Machine as a console not a desktop PC.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoftyI think the sandboxing would require an appimage software center that you check box 'sandbox' and it automatically firejails the application.

I'd have to check but I think that AM / AppMan (AppImage Package Manager) can do this. It is CLI rather than GUI, however. Perhaps @Bestia can verify.

Quoting: BestiaI'm using AM

(Just to catch @Bestia's attention.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyI'm not obsessed with the GOG.com like seemingly everyone else; but I'd love to see more games natively supporting Linux (there's a heck of a lot of games in my Steam library that support Linux natively, with no Linux package under GOG.com).

I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with GOG but I do prefer having their offline installers instead of depending on the Steam client. Still, I find myself considering Steam for any game running in Linux natively just because the Linux packages tend to be more up-to-date and better supported (what with the Linux runtimes and all).

Yet, I am not sure this is entirely GOG's fault. Oftentimes, it seems like the developer is slower to update their Linux packages on GOG than they are on Steam. It would be lovely if GOG could find a way to copy the Linux runtimes idea and make them work with their offline installers. A guy can dream...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoftyThere is no perfect solution tbf. But i do prefer the system of flapak and it's easy configuration of permissions + integration with software centers for the latest features.

Makes sense. We discussed this in the thread about Canonical and their snaps. @sarmad made a great point about that in regards to AppImages.

Quoting: sarmadIf distros adopted AppImages and have it all configured out of the box it would've been as easy to use as flatpaks, but with extra flexibility, which actually is the essence of Linux.

Comment 288267

Right now, flatpaks have the advantage simply because the distros do the work of putting in all the backend support beforehand. They could do the same for AppImages but right now, those of us that prefer them have to put in the backend support ourselves.

Quoting: sarmadOut of the three formats, AppImage provides the most flexibility: you can download an appimage directly, or use a hub. You can use it sandboxed, or not. You can have appimages auto update themselves. You can use it for cli or gui, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: CaldathrasWhile I've gotten used to their DRM-free script-based Linux installers, I would love it if they moved the Linux offline installers to AppImage, with all of the dependencies incorporated.

eh, appimage isn't really the 'container format' that it seems to have initially been sold as. In many cases there are system dependencies and linked libraries that as per linux will get updated to a point where by the appimage cannot work at all, which then requires a full appimage refresh & update. it is also not sandboxed without firejail.

( anecdote incoming: i thought i was archiving programs originally, turns out 6 months is a long time in software, my favorite appimage was just a grey empt box with a gtk crash handler message.. and this was on linux mint not exact a rolling release.)


Now flatpak .. That is much more inline with a kind of 'bottled' instance of software, it too also needing to remain somewhat in step with the system but it has some other benefits of better system integration & is sandboxed. Plus flathub / flatpak is becoming the de-facto distro agnostic software distribution method so there is consistency of support via popularity.

imo ofc

Strange, I don't think I've ever had that issue happen to an AppImage, unless it was caused by AppImagelauncher being out of date -- then I've had all sorts of problems. In my opinion, if that happens to an AppImage, the packager is not doing their job correctly. By the way, I can testify from first-hand experience that this can happen with flatpak packages as well. Neither packaging system is perfect.

My problem with flatpak is, as I understand it, you basically end up with an installer that is dependent on the flatpak system to install. To my knowledge, you cannot back it up easily (in manner readily accessible to a basic user) and you need to be online to install it. It is not stored on your system but on a server somewhere on the Internet. If that server goes down -- or you no longer have Internet access (for whatever reason) -- you cannot install the game.

Whereas, the whole point behind GOG's offline installers is that they are self-contained and DRM-free offline installers. To me, the AppImage format fits the bill -- with the ability to include all dependencies, if done correctly. Certainly, some maintenance on GOG's part over time will be necessary. And, heck, even the Windows offline installers are sometimes missing dependencies and need updating (although GOG's Preservation Program is improving on that).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Penguin

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: PenguinFor reference: the Mint team updated their Xfce flavor (from 4.16 to 4.18) in Mint 21.2.

Uhm... I have Mint 21.3 XFCE currently. It ships with Xfce 4.16. The update actually happened with Mint 22.0. We likely won't see Xfce 4.20 until Mint 23 comes out.

As @AsciiWolf pointed out, it has to do with the base version of Ubuntu they rely on. The only exception is Cinnamon, which the Mint Team manages themselves.

Well, I was eagerly waiting for the (back then) new Xfce clock plugin, which was delivered in Mint 21.2 with Xfce 4.18, and I remember it well. Just to be sure I'm not crazy, I did some research, and you can read more about the Mint 21.2 release here:

https://9to5linux.com/linux-mint-21-2-victoria-is-slated-for-release-on-june-2023-heres-what-to-expect [External Link]

In the article it says:

"Most notably here, the Xfce edition will be based on the latest Xfce 4.18 desktop environment."

😮

Well, I'll be ... I could have sworn that Mint 21.3 was on Xfce 4.16! But, here I am on that very laptop, and sure enough ... neofetch says it is running on Xfce 4.18. I had the ISO for Mint 21.2, so I checked that too -- you are absolutely right!

I knew that Mint 22.0 was on Xfce 4.18 and one of the reasons I rolled back was because of some formatting bugs in the system tray that strangely do not appear in Mint 21.3. I just assumed it was because of a version upgrade on Xfce and never bothered to check once I was back on Mint 21.3.

I apologize for contradicting you. Now that I know, I share your sentiments ... but it looks like we will have to wait until a version of Mint based on Ubuntu 25.04 or later (or use the Xubuntu Experimental PPA -- I'll wait).

View this comment - View article - View full comments