Quoting: CatKillerHands up: I didn't think that they'd be able to match the price of the Deck, but they have. They must've managed to get some sweet prices on components.

I definitely wouldn't get one over a Deck - awkward control layout, no trackpads, weaker GPU - but the Deck isn't an option for everyone since it's only sold in a limited number of countries.

I hope using Linux works out for them, and they use it for future models (and there's no shortage of future models with Aya Neo) as the better option rather than as the cheaper option.

I found some of their tricks.
Turns out sd support is actually really expensive adn
touchpad calibration and development is tough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

s&box's own reaction is the most interesting of all.
It's the reaction I'm used to from fan fiction writers, but now for a game.
Basically full compliance and even protecting their striker.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hardpenguin

Quoting: EikeThere's people not using the trackpads on Steam Deck either.

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: s13.gifyu.com

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Basicly ignorance and bloat.
It's a new kind of controller and the other stuff is there too.
Why learn a new trick when the old one still works.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: satorideponConsidering the price it's not that bad and actually is a solid alternative to LCD Deck.

GPU is worse, but everything else is better (well, no trackpads, but again most people wouldn't care).

The only problem is that $299 model is only 128gb and doesn't have SD card slot, which makes it kinda useless unless you plan to replace the SSD.

And of course I'm concerned on how they will support the OS (and if they will in the first place)

The first Steamdecks started as 64GB and sold quite smooth.

I bought one, too... but I wouldn't have without an SD card slot.

Good point, I think they're relying on the usb 3.2(data only) port.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: satorideponConsidering the price it's not that bad and actually is a solid alternative to LCD Deck.

GPU is worse, but everything else is better (well, no trackpads, but again most people wouldn't care).

The only problem is that $299 model is only 128gb and doesn't have SD card slot, which makes it kinda useless unless you plan to replace the SSD.

And of course I'm concerned on how they will support the OS (and if they will in the first place)

The first Steamdecks started as 64GB and sold quite smooth.
Thanks to Wirth's law that wouldn't be enough anymore, but 128 gigs ROM and 16 gigs RAM should be enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I was really curious how they planned to do "subscription".
This kind of a boring implementation, but slow and steady wins the race.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm actually quite impressed.
With both Liam and Ayeneo.
Liam got himself taken seriously as an industry voice.
Ayeneo didn't only undercut Valve, but did so while keeping it future proof.
I does cost some qualities and new technologies, but only on this forum we've already seen some protest to them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: Pyretic

Quoting: dubigrasuHow good is Vanguard compared with other AC software out there? Is that efficient on Valorant?

If you're talking about performance, Valorant runs fine with it on.

If you're talking about security, you can circumvent the anti-virus (and most other kernel-level software) with a Windows VM.

I was asking how efficient is in terms of combating cheating in whatever form. Is Valorant cheaters free, or at least is cheating significantly reduced compared with other AC software, so much so that is worth (for Riot) the public backlash?
And as a side note, what other game (if any) is using it?

Security is hard to measure(especially for security through obscurity products maybe protected by the "effective measures" clause)
There are free and openly accessible cheats of Valorant.
Cheats have existed, since the beta.
There appear to be no other games using it.
Vanguard appears to have decent VM detection(circumventable, but requiring at least some research).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: LoudTechieThere're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

i kinda of understand what you said, but can you explain it a bit more?

to be more specific the specific relationship between companies and foss.

Although Grigi isn't fully wrong it's deeper than that and management isn't the only issue.

At first I'm going to be a little bit generalizing, but I promise the point will be clear.
Further on I will give a little bit more refinement.
Foss and companies like each other, because they provide each other with tools to achieve their goals.
Foss and companies don't like each other, because they actively fight each other when their goals don't match.
Foss wants computers to be a sandbox where everyone can play as long as they don't actively hurt each other.
Companies want to be so much better than the others at working with computers that people are going to pay them to do the things they do well.
In the basic this isn't a problem, but in practice they sometimes clash.
For example:
When 5 billion people are all active with computers there is a serious chance that there is someone else who might be just as good or just slightly worse at what you do with computers.
That's a problem for the companies, because if that is the case they are suddenly in a race to the bottom with that someone else.
They would prefer it if some things with computers required a very limited resource they possessed, so doing way better than everybody else became easy, which often leads them to walling off parts of the sandbox.
The Foss people don't like walling off parts of the sandbox and actively sabotage it.
The risk of getting sabotaged is scary for companies.
Companies mitigate such risks often by paying outside companies who are specialized in mitigating these risks.

Refinement:
There're actually a few quite anti-cooperate voices within the Foss community and anti-foss voices within cooperate and those tend to spark smaller conflicts of their own. Internal and external.
I'm right now splitting over the lines of Foss and cooperate, because that is what the question was, but it's obviously an arbitrary line.

With this information why did I argue that "they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms".
First I specifically defined "proprietary" cooperate.
Proprietary is a foss slur for non/anti-foss. I used it to separate cooperate in those that wall off parts of the sandbox and those that don't.
Second I called their fear grounded for the aggressive stance some of the foss people have taken towards those walling off parts of the sandbox.

After that I presented some examples of proprietary companies and how they dealt with this.

Something to keep in mind is that not all corporations are software corporations, and many of those non-software corporations have employees who can code. Those corporations don't have the same conflict--the only reason they have for sometimes not liking FOSS is instinct. But fundamentally, they only gain from FOSS, and this is probably a key reason for FOSS success.

They have the same conflict, just a lot less.
The New York Times would be better off if they were the only one who could write articles on the internet.
A bank would be better off if they were the only ones with some superior database software.
Car companies fill their cars with spyware and drm.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: LoudTechieThere're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

i kinda of understand what you said, but can you explain it a bit more?

to be more specific the specific relationship between companies and foss.

Although Grigi isn't fully wrong it's deeper than that and management isn't the only issue.

At first I'm going to be a little bit generalizing, but I promise the point will be clear.
Further on I will give a little bit more refinement.
Foss and companies like each other, because they provide each other with tools to achieve their goals.
Foss and companies don't like each other, because they actively fight each other when their goals don't match.
Foss wants computers to be a sandbox where everyone can play as long as they don't actively hurt each other.
Companies want to be so much better than the others at working with computers that people are going to pay them to do the things they do well.
In the basic this isn't a problem, but in practice they sometimes clash.
For example:
When 5 billion people are all active with computers there is a serious chance that there is someone else who might be just as good or just slightly worse at what you do with computers.
That's a problem for the companies, because if that is the case they are suddenly in a race to the bottom with that someone else.
They would prefer it if some things with computers required a very limited resource they possessed, so doing way better than everybody else became easy, which often leads them to walling off parts of the sandbox.
The Foss people don't like walling off parts of the sandbox and actively sabotage it.
The risk of getting sabotaged is scary for companies.
Companies mitigate such risks often by paying outside companies who are specialized in mitigating these risks.

Refinement:
There're actually a few quite anti-cooperate voices within the Foss community and anti-foss voices within cooperate and those tend to spark smaller conflicts of their own. Internal and external.
I'm right now splitting over the lines of Foss and cooperate, because that is what the question was, but it's obviously an arbitrary line.

With this information why did I argue that "they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms".
First I specifically defined "proprietary" cooperate.
Proprietary is a foss slur for non/anti-foss. I used it to separate cooperate in those that wall off parts of the sandbox and those that don't.
Second I called their fear grounded for the aggressive stance some of the foss people have taken towards those walling off parts of the sandbox.

After that I presented some examples of proprietary companies and how they dealt with this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments