Quoting: ToddL

Quoting: EduAAAThey very generous, free game, but when you check let's see hmm, it's not the full game, it's a way to make people buy must have dlcs unless you wanna play a demo.

Not sure what you're getting at with this statement since the version of Dragon Age Inquisition that Epic is giving away is the Game of the Year edition, which includes the DLC and other bonuses.

Of all the free offers I looked at from this article, the only giveaway with just the core game is ENDLESS Legend. There is a ton of DLC for this one. The core game is not a demo, however, and no one is obligated to buy the DLC. Of course, I am sure that the hope is that you will like the base game enough to want to purchase some of the DLC ...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To think I was considering to eventually try the other Dragon Age games and the Mass Effect series, once I get through more of my backlog. EA just keeps doing things that make me want to boycott them instead ...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Talon1024The Seven Deadly Sinners of the Game Industry

Greed: EA
Wrath: Nintendo
Sloth: Bethesda
Pride/Hubris: Rockstar Games
Lust: Epic Games
Gluttony: Microsoft
Envy: ???

Wouldn't Embracer and Microsoft be in competition for the Gluttony slot?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Caldathras

It's worth noting at this point that Take-Two's CEO, Strauss Zelnick, was paid $42.1 million last year, which is more than two-and-a-half times the previous year. So once again, the people at the top are pulling in big numbers while cutting the people doing the work.

This needs to be pointed out more often. No one deserves this high a salary, especially at the expense of those that earn much less. Plain greed.

:angry:

What's the correct number for them to make ? How do you arrive at that number ? Who gets to decide ? I'm not trying to defend Take Two but at the same time trying to dictate how much people are allowed to make is a recipe for a different form of tyranny.

Well, in the end that would be the commoners (i.e., the working class) - much to the terror of the elite classes. Does the French Revolution or Russia's February Revolution ring a bell?

As to your other thoughts, I defer to the answers from others.

I am part of the working class. I work six day weeks, 48 hours a week, to just get by. That means I get to decide ? So I could say that there should be no ceiling for earnings and torpedo your whole plan ? Can I also decide how much you get to earn ? You may not like my thoughts on that number right now.

You failed to answer me how much this man should earn or how you arrived at the number. There is no right number and that's why. The whole argument is just to hate the "rich". You say that this is for the terror of the elites but it should terrify anyone at allowing anybody to make law how much another person can earn. It would never end at the "elites" and would end up affecting the very people you claim to want to help anyway.

So am I. I've already capped my own earnings, thanks.

I've made no claims of wanting to help anyone. At what point did I suggest anything about a law? This is a matter of ethics not legality. Is there a "right" number? I have no idea. But compensation at the level of $42 million is just pure greed. No CEO contributes enough to a company to deserve that, period. Before the eighties, this was understood. Now everything is just pure greed.

Oh, and yes, as a member of the common folk, you do get to decide. Collectively or individually. You've just presumably chosen not to exercise that option and decided to live within the system provided to you by the elite.

Quoting: PublicNuisanceallowing anybody to make law how much another person can earn.

FYI, most Western governments already do this. Are you not familiar with minimum wage legislation?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Manand the harsh reality is that sometimes layoffs are necessary to keep a business solvent.

But it doesn't look good when the CEO (or his Board) gives himself a $20 million raise/bonus at the same time. Instead, it looks like the CEO is terminating employees simply to justify padding his own pockets. This leads one to question his ethics.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Caldathras

It's worth noting at this point that Take-Two's CEO, Strauss Zelnick, was paid $42.1 million last year, which is more than two-and-a-half times the previous year. So once again, the people at the top are pulling in big numbers while cutting the people doing the work.

This needs to be pointed out more often. No one deserves this high a salary, especially at the expense of those that earn much less. Plain greed.

:angry:

What's the correct number for them to make ? How do you arrive at that number ? Who gets to decide ? I'm not trying to defend Take Two but at the same time trying to dictate how much people are allowed to make is a recipe for a different form of tyranny.

Well, in the end that would be the commoners (i.e., the working class) - much to the terror of the elite classes. Does the French Revolution or Russia's February Revolution ring a bell?

As to your other thoughts, I defer to the answers from others.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm not much for horror games but this looks really amazing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's worth noting at this point that Take-Two's CEO, Strauss Zelnick, was paid $42.1 million last year, which is more than two-and-a-half times the previous year. So once again, the people at the top are pulling in big numbers while cutting the people doing the work.

This needs to be pointed out more often. No one deserves this high a salary, especially at the expense of those that earn much less. Plain greed.

:angry:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: wvstolzingOn the cli, it comes with a package manager of sorts; otherwise it integrates with gui managers like KDE Discover, or GNOME Software via packagekit transparently. I use `flatpak update` on the cli, whenever I check for stuff on the regular package manager.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualYou just click the Update All button in GNOME Software or KDE Discover to update your system + Flatpak packages. They're all managed via PackageKit.

Quoting: belisamaYes, Mint has integrated Flatpak updates into its update manager.

Thanks everyone, that was very informative. And actually makes me much more likely to grab something from Flathub in future.

Ditto.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: legluondunetWhat distribution you will advice for gaming?
From my experience, a good Linux distribution for gaming will be a distribution that will provide all packages needed for gaming:
- Proprietary and open source graphic drivers
- recent kernel
- wifi/bluetooth drivers
- wine/wine-staging
- 32 and 64 bits libraries
- Steam
- all emulators
- flatpak
- Lutris, Heroic...
- Gamescope, Mangohud
which manages dependencies efficiently: for example, if I install Lutris, also install wine, the 32 and 64 bit libraries, install the sdl libraries etc... So that the user subsequently does not have any messages error linked to a missing library when launching his games. And packages should be updated regularly.

At the moment I have successfully tested the following distributions for the game:
- Manjaro (ARCH)
- openSUSE Tumbleweed

This two distributions are rolling release so you always use recent and stable packages.

As an Ubuntu user for many years, I would not recommend this Linux distribution for gaming, I have experienced a lot of problems with unsatisfied dependencies, app packages not available, issues unresolved and its management of PPAs is complicated and degrades its stability.
Then I often encountered difficulties when updating from one version to another.

What about Fedora? I would be interested in your feedback.

I am currently setting up Mint 21.3 XFCE for gaming. I have been using Mint as my daily driver since version 13 over ten years ago.

For Linux gaming, I have tried Linux Mint (fixed release cycle), Manjaro (rolling release), and Pop!_OS (semi-rolling). With fixed releases, I prefer to do clean installs but having to reinstall all my games with each fixed release update was becoming an annoyance. Rolling releases address that concern but being bleeding edge isn't everything it is cracked up to be! The sacrifice is stability.

Honestly, Manjaro ran like crap on my legacy laptop with very poor support for my laptop's legacy Nvidia GPU. Pop!_OS does a far superior job overall but the Gnome UI takes a lot of getting used to and then there's the Pop!_Shop ... Mint's Software Manager is just so much better! I would still recommend Pop!_OS as excellent gaming distribution, however.

With the new Upgrade feature that Mint has introduced, I feel that my primary issue with fixed releases is being addressed. So I thought I'd give Mint another try, this time with the XFCE edition. Yes, the packages are not as up-to-date as in a rolling release. For the ones that matter to me, this can be gotten around via PPAs, Flatpaks, AppImages or binaries. If it requires building/compiling, I just don't bother with it. So far, the gaming experience hasn't been much different than in Pop!_OS, to be honest. I haven't yet encountered the stability issues in Ubuntu that you mentioned.

View this comment - View article - View full comments