The price of the Deck Dock is not on the cheap side, but considering that the power supply is included, all the features that comes with the dock and the support quality that Valve usually offers, it's not as bad as it seems.

As a comparison... JSaux Dock (60$CAN) + 45w PSU (30$CAN) = 90$CAN... Valve's Deck Dock 120$CAN. It's more expensive, but nothing catastrophic, imo.

Will I buy it? Probably not. I barely use mine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestMeh, the game is so boring, repetitive and shallow...

Not the biggest fan myself, but for many, it's a big (if not the sole) reason to boot Windows. So, even if you don't play the game, putting your +1 will help Linux gaming as a whole. Linux needs to be supported by these big titles.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Did my part too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I plead guilty to the CP2077 rise. :grin:
Nothing to do with the anime though... Not my cup of tea.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment. :wink:

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?

Yeah, except in a real streaming-only world, since there would be no alternative to the streaming services, and there would be only a few of them, they would cut anti-competitive deals with each other and all start mandating the hardware you use, so you'd have various incompatible-with-each-other consoles all over again that you'd have to spend money on . . . not because there was any valid technical reason for it, but because they could.

Not sure about that. Your reasoning revolves around an hardware centric business... Cloud gaming is a SaaS. What hardware you use, they don't really care. What they care about is the subscriptions and the services you pay for. In many cases, those that supply cloud services don't even supply the hardware. Why would they bother? If what you say is true, I wouldn't be able to use GeForce Now on the same device as Stadia. Sony wouldn't have put their games on PC. There is a paradigm shift caused by SaaS.

Edit: What you will definetly see, though, are exclusive games from service to service.

On top of that, I've always heard that Sony and Microsoft are selling their consoles at a loss, explaining the 30% cut in their stores... Don't you think they'd be happy to get rid of that? This and all the support tickets because of hardware failures? Think about it... I can stream my Steam games using the 60$ Steam Link hardware... My Chromecast with GoogleTV is able to do all that for 50$... Do you think there is a lot of money to be made in this market segment? What they want is sell games, not a piece of tech. The piece of tech they care about is on the server side, at this point.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment. :wink:

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?

Yeah, except in a real streaming-only world, since there would be no alternative to the streaming services, and there would be only a few of them, they would cut anti-competitive deals with each other and all start mandating the hardware you use, so you'd have various incompatible-with-each-other consoles all over again that you'd have to spend money on . . . not because there was any valid technical reason for it, but because they could.

Not sure about that. Your reasoning revolves around an hardware centric business... Cloud gaming is a SaaS. What hardware you use, they don't really care. What they care about is the subscriptions and the services you pay for. In many cases, those that supply cloud services don't even supply the hardware. Why would they bother? If what you say is true, I wouldn't be able to use GeForce Now on the same device as Stadia. Sony wouldn't have put their games on PC. There is a paradigm shift caused by SaaS.

Edit: What you will definetly see, though, are exclusive games from service to service.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment. :wink:

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: MohandevirIt would be really nice of them to "turn on" the standard bluetooth pairing for the Stadia controller, so we may use it elsewhere, wireless... It could make a fantastic AndroidTV controller for GeForce Now...

I thought that was a hardware limitation not just a limitation by the firmware.

Would be nice, I really like the controller.

Nope. The Stadia controller has a standard 4.2 bluetooth chip... It's only used for initial pairing, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

Edit: And I didn't even mentionned the impact of these shipments on sea life.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

In not so long, Valve will start it's own optional cloud service, based on SteamOS and using the infrastructure of Google Stadia. It will come preinstalled on all Chromebooks...

Just a wild idea, that may never happen. :wink:

View this comment - View article - View full comments