Quoting: Genesis198Yeah it's this exact type of bs that made me sell my steam deck and get an ally and never look back,

I . . . think you might be on the wrong website then. Check the name.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Lachu

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LoftyNintendo make money off of selling hardware and of course a few of their exclusive IP's. You being able to emulate switch on PC won't hurt them one bit, but everyone else doing it with consummate ease en-mass & on a steam deck in higher quality which is just a much better switch like platform would and eventually probably will destroy Nintendo.

Maybe, but that's not the customer's problem. Businesses are not entitled to abusive business models simply on the basis that they wouldn't be able to make money on non-abusive business models. That's why we have antitrust laws, child labour laws, product safety laws and on and on. So if the question is "Should businesses have the right to dictate what hardware I use to run software I bought from them?" the answer does not hinge on whether they will lose money from not being able to do it. Nor does it have anything to do with whether they put some kind of encryption on it to enforce their ability to so dictate, even if there's a law with a clause that says it's illegal to circumvent their encryption.

And there is an answer to the question. The answer is "No, businesses should not have that right. If I buy something, I should be able to do anything I want with it that isn't illegal for real reasons unconnected with that business' ability to exploit me." In fact, the whole thing where when you buy software you are claimed to have "licensed" it and have to click on a EULA is bullshit from start to finish. I don't sign a EULA when I buy a TV, even though it probably has software in it.

That's not the same case, it's even worse. In this case, Nintendo restricts platform/hardware you are able to play with games of other companies. It is anti-free-market.

Didn't mean to give the impression that I thought all Nintendo was doing was using EULAs; I was just giving that as an example of the kind of thing that shouldn't really be allowed.

Meanwhile, I don't actually give a damn if things are anti-free-market. (rant about free markets follows)

Spoiler, click me

Not a big fan of either free markets or the things that actually exist that people call free markets even though they aren't and indeed can't possibly be. Markets are social constructs which are formed and maintained by the creation and enforcement of social rules, sometimes formal, sometimes informal. Markets free of such rules cannot exist. So-called "free" markets are markets in which a certain kind of rule is considered less legitimate and reduced as much as possible--specifically, any rule intended to increase the common good as opposed to that of the individual wealthy profiteer. They work as they're supposed to--they let the Zuckerbergs of the world piss on our heads and tell us it's raining.

I do care if things take power away from actual people.

(Side note: The term "free market" as invented by the classical economists meant something entirely different from what free-marketeers mean by it now. They were talking about markets in which rules were applied for the purpose of squeezing out market "rents", making those markets free of rents. So a classical "free market" would be one in which no firm had the power to erect barriers to entry, create a monopoly or cartel, or otherwise evade competition and use that evasion to raise prices.
For modern free-marketeers, the point is almost opposite, to reduce all rules that might restrict what firms do, under the assumption that anything whatsoever they might choose to do must be efficient because markets, and the underlying motivation is precisely to create a situation that both allows and gives an economic justification for extracting rents to create windfall profits at consumer expense)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dpanterDRM is cancer, retroactively forcing it on older titles is despicable and anti-consumer to a degree most companies can't even bring themselves to think about.

Bit of hyperbole there. Most companies can bring themselves to think about pretty much anything that will make them money.

Spoiler, click me

One of the major points of the corporate form of organization is to push otherwise decent people into more-or-less-willingly performing arbitrarily despicable acts in the name of profit for the company. Not that this is totally unique; one of the major points of organizing a religion as a hierarchy is to push otherwise decent people into performing despicable acts at whatever level is required to save more souls, AKA grow the organization's power. And so on; hierarchies are there to grow the hierarchy's power and scale, and one major component of that is disciplining the human cogs in the hierarchy into performing whatever actions are necessary to pursue that end.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineThought the art was pretty nice for static images, tbh. I guess we all have different tastes.

I'm not saying the art is bad. It's just that the setup doesn't give me the impression that a fight is going on. Like, if you take Slay the Spire, it's still just basically a still image of your character and still images of the opponents, with pretty minimal combat animations when you play a card. But it still sort of looks as if your character is a person, who is there facing off against a thingie or multiple thingies, because of the way the space they are in is presented. In this, because the pictures are in boxes and there's no real representation of a space that the images might be in, let alone in together, I don't feel like it gives that impression--it's heading more towards the abstraction level of chess, or playing Battleship with graph paper. Your chess rook can be beautiful, but playing chess doesn't really give me an impression of combat.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Seems kind of . . . standard. Right down to being set in a place called "Draconia".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elgatil

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: fenglengshunHm... and the NVK isn't a kernel driver? I think it's in Mesa, so does that mean it's the userspace driver? Sorry, really don't know about the details - all I've been hearing is about how NVK is supposed to be a replacement for Nouveau.

nvk is a Vulkan implementation that uses the kernel driver, so no, it's not a kernel driver itself. So it's either nvk + nouveau or nvk + nova.

Or NVK + Zink, which at this point seems the efficient solution. I do not know, I cannot bring myself to be interested in this project :neutral:

I . . . didn't think Zink was a driver either?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I rather like the look of this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: nwildner

Quoting: fenglengshunOkay, I'm confused here - is this redundant with NVK and what other aspect of this vs NVK that I'm not understanding that would make the project make sense as it's own thing despite the great progress that NVK has made in recent months?

Not redundant. It is a "replacement" (read with a grain of salt here) for the nouveau driver, but focused on GSP enabled GPUS that don't have to deal with the legacy nouveau has to implement to handle older than RTX2000 series hardware.

It is a kernel driver(dri, pci, iomem, common abstractions for hardware) and not a translation layer or 3D API whatsoever.

Nice hat!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumHmm? While I think it's good to have beneficial defaults was there anything on ubuntu stopping users adjusting this themselves?

I'm just not sure what the big deal is as in my mind this one is just one of those "Oh, that's the issue? Okay, tweak that, done."

I don't use an operating system so I can tweak it.

Back in the day with Fedora and Mandrake I had to mess with stuff all the time to get stuff to work. I hated it. I persevered for political reasons and because Windows sucked pretty hard in its own ways, but it was not my scene. I use an OS for it to work, so I can do things on it without worrying about it. Nowadays I hardly ever have to tweak the OS, and if I do have to I consider it a signal that I should think about switching to something that works.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have Griftlands. I went through the basic scenario once and got trashed by the last boss. I didn't go through again because although I liked the combat as such quite well and might have found it interesting to develop some combos and whatnot as I unlocked new cards and stuff, there were some annoying things about the story side.

So, first, I didn't really like the difficulty curve. The beginning was pretty easy, the middle was maybe in theory harder but by then I'd acquired some better cards so it was still easy, difficulty started to ramp up just in the last few encounters and then the last boss stomped me into the ground with absolutely zero chance. So I immediately realized that if I went through a couple more times to get good enough to take the boss, that would mean the whole rest of the game I'd be yawning as I went through the motions.

The second thing was that when you fought, there were two ways to do it--you could fight them physically, or argue them into submission. You had like a separate deck for the two options, and the combat with the two had a slightly different style, it was pretty cool. So if you fight people in the game, you can either just hurt them but be merciful or, at least if you nail them hard enough or choose to, you can kill them. If you persuade them, obviously killing isn't an option. But the thing is, when you defeat people, they or people who knew them would hate you for it, and this would hand you tactical problems in fights from then on--unless and until you actually kill those people. And they hate you just as much if you take the arguing route. So, strategically, hands down your best option is to just kill everybody. And with the last boss and a couple of other encounters I'm not sure persuasion is even an option. So that means there is no point whatsoever in ever using the arguing route--it hands you difficulties, has no advantages, and your cards will be better if you specialize. It bugs me that there's this whole effort to develop this neat alternative and then they make it a stupid thing to pay attention to. For that matter, the whole idea that you get a combat penalty if people don't like you strikes me as dumb, and doubly so if the result of it is you're better off slaughtering everyone.

On top of that, the story felt like there was a lot less to it than seemed. It was all over pretty quickly.

It's a pity, because I kind of liked the style and I quite liked the fast-talk option as a basic idea and even the combat mechanics of doing it. Maybe with some tweaks and more content it could be a really quite good game, but as it stood when I played it I wouldn't pay much for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments