Yay, Girl Genius! I'm not really a metroidvania kind of gamer as a rule, but I might make an exception for this.
Wonder if she'll get any help from Gilgamesh Wulfenbach -- Schmott Guy! (complete with hat)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have a feeling that as more outfits use Blender, increased development on audio/video systems for Linux itself may come as a byproduct.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TobyGornowFinally, a small question : How do you motivate yourself to work on your personal project ? I'm currently in a high procrastination period, so much It's been a month or more since I've touched my two Godot project I've got on the burner. Same with my music, I pick my guitar for 5 minutes, scratch it a little and put it back. What's your trick ?
Maybe it's just a period... Really busy at work.

Ha! If someone can answer this one for you, I'll be fascinated to see it too!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Going old school with Age of Wonders III.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Who's Nat, and why are they punching him?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hmmm . . . wonder why there's suddenly no money for severance etc.
Was the company mismanaged and in debt? Or did the money disappear into the owner's pocket?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: aokamiI'm a bit confused, is this helping for translation layers or for developers to natively port their original game or both ?
Sure sounds good though! :grin:

It's tech used for building games, that supports Linux on top of many other platforms. There is a big list linked in the article.

I guess sort of the way many game engines support multiple platforms, except it does somewhat different stuff than an engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KandarihuFrom the headline, I thought it was going to be a LAN party with only Linux-native games in it. Instead, it's going to just be a talk about how to more effortlessly get the Windows games running on Linux.

I wish we could just develop more of a Linux-centric gaming culture that celebrates the games with native Linux support in the same way that the rest of the gaming culture celebrates the stuff on their platforms of choice. That would result in fleshing out our cultural identity as Linux gamers and reward developers for actually going through the porting process.

Unfortunately, the main way one rewards developers is by paying money for their games, and there aren't enough of us to make that reward very substantial.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: GuestI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.

A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)

And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.

You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.

My ancestors alredy tried it and we get out of totalitarian dictatorship of comunist party in 1989. Never again. We need free marked economy with minimal state. Not another example of horrible results with good intention.

First, I don't recall advocating anything resembling Soviet Communism, whose state and production were very much the opposite of democratically controlled. Second, bad though Soviet Communism was, when Russia stopped being Communist and introduced a free market economy with a minimalist state, people started dying like flies. The place went into freefall. Things didn't start going back to normal until they reasserted the authority of the state and went a bit more mixed.
Within capitalist countries it is noticeable that the most prosperous ones with the least poverty and misery are generally the least free-markety with the strongest states--the Nordics and such like. So I really don't think there's a strong case to be made for everyone imitating the US or some Baltic hellholes that caught the free market bug.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: GuestI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.

A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)

And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.

You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.

View this comment - View article - View full comments