Quoting: EikeTrouble is: I'm not sure replacing my Intel 3570K would actually speed up any game. If it does, I will strongly consider buying an AMD CPU.

You may want to check the end of the year when we will probably have a lot more games coming out with Vulkan support. There will possibly be a difference between the 4 threads in the 3570K and the 16 threads in the Ryzen CPUs. Until then, I think you're absolutely right, it won't helping gaming much.

For folks like me who do game development or artists who do 3D rendering, these CPUs will help a ton since rendering or baking lightmaps of a scene can literally take days to render! A faster multi-core CPU is a huge win! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PompesdeskyI really really hope that if the performance is on par with Intel, and even if Intel strongly decreases their pricing, people will massively buy the AMD solution. I would love to see Intel pay for their bad practises, be it with regards to end customers with their crazy prices (hi there Nvidia as well) or shadow business practices making that you'll hardly find an AMD processor in OEM desktops and even less in laptops :><:

Some YouTubers, like LinusTechTips, did some ad-hoc benchmarking at the expo and it looks like performance per dollar blows away Intel! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI wonder if this might become my first AMD CPU after... an Athlon, I guess?
And I wonder even more if I might get my first AMD/ATI GPU later - but I won't compromise on speed here.

I second that. The last AMD chip I bought was back in 2005. So far I'm completely sold on these Ryzen chips. Finally, AMD seems to be bringing some great competition to Intel! This is good for Intel users and great for AMD users :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm really dying for more discussion about Vulkan being used in more games and that more Serious Sam (albeit older) games are coming to Linux... isn't that exciting?!! :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm excited to see more games coming to Vulkan this year. I'm going to make an educated guess and say that by the end of the year most games will start to be released using Vulkan due to things like this and the fact that the upcoming release of Unity will have the option to use Vulkan. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've been wanting a motocross game on Linux... nice to see one coming :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cheeseness

Quoting: natewardawgAs far as I know, the fee has always been $100, even when there weren't so many low quality games.

Greenlight existed for about two months before the fee was added. Here's some commentary [External Link] from developers on the fee when it was first introduced (which includes a prediction from Rami Ismail that it would probably rise to $1000).

Thanks Cheeseness, I appreciate your insight and the link. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razing32

Quoting: natewardawgA one time fee of about $100 is probably a really good idea. This keeps absolute junk off of the store, ...

Sorry but have to disagree. That 100$ is not stopping the hacks.

I don't disagree that this will raise the quality of games that are available, but it will also cut out many indie game developers including many quality games. Also, many of the poor quality games are because Valve opened the flood gates from Greenlight and stopped curating the games as much. As far as I know, the fee has always been $100, even when there weren't so many low quality games. If you really want nothing but high quality games, Valve must curate all games coming in and reject poor quality games. I don't think this is something Valve wants to do anymore, therefore tacking a $1000 fee doesn't make any sense either.

In all truth though, it really doesn't matter, any discussion in this forum isn't going to sway Valve one way or the other as to the cost. But, with that said... I highly doubt they will charge $1000, I just don't see it happening.

Quoting: razing32Not hard to get , think there was a system that would keep your games open till you got all the cards , so use that , sell the cards on the marketplace, and there you go.

AFAIK, you can't use your Steam Wallet to pay for it since it goes through the partner site and not through the main store. I am willing to be corrected though :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Yu0Most games take long enough to develop to make 1000$ a non-issue compared to the cost of living over the development time. 100$ might be too little a barrier to ward off junkware, aiming to collect some money before complaints reach Valve. Would probably require a field test though to find a good boundary value for such issues.

This is backward thinking. From personal experience, most indie games take long enough that the people making them are very exhausted and completely broke. If you're talking a mid to large sized studios, $1000 is probably no problem, but for indie devs, this is a very steep price to ask.

Quoting: Yu0On the other hand, there are games like "polycrusher", which was done as a students' project with the aim of not only developing a game, but also releasing it on a relevant platform.

Do you think this student has $1000 to fork over to put their game up on Steam? This game looks like a great game!!! But... only has 9 reviews from the 4 months it has been on sale. Usually the first month or two are the best months for a game. This also means if the 30% fee was recoverable, they would have to sell a little over 330 copies at $10. I doubt this game will ever do that and this student would have just lost the remaining portion. Again, $1000 is a small risk for mid to large sized studios, but for indie developers it is a pretty big risk. Many of them have families and are living on their savings from previously working in the game industry where, again, $1000 is a large chunk of that savings account and an extremely steep asking price.

$100 is a high enough barrier that it will keep most shovel-ware off of the store without keeping everybody else out. I think even greedy Apple knows this, which is why the barrier to entry is... $100 :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A one time fee of about $100 is probably a really good idea. This keeps absolute junk off of the store, but still allows for indie game startups who have already sank a ton of money into making their game, many of which just don't have $1000 more to pay to get onto the store. Absolutely free, I'm afraid, would probably allow many pretty good games to drown in the sea of not so good ones.

View this comment - View article - View full comments