Quoting: scaineI honestly thought Stadia was just a glorified Steam Link that worked over the internet? So while the box you buy might be Linux-based, I always assumed there would simply be a farm of PCs running Windows in a datacentre somewhere and you tapped into that resource to place your game.

You don't buy a box. About the only real plus for this over just buying games normally is, you can play it on pretty much anything with a screen (well, if your internet connection is fast enough). So the mention of Linux was always about the servers.

It's not my schtick. But it's interesting and worth watching IMO. If it does nothing else whatsoever, it will introduce developers to developing for Linux and Vulkan, potentially helping Vulkan win out over DX12 in PC gaming. Cuz, like, if you're planning a Stadia build of your new game anyway, why not just make the game for Vulkan in the first place?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

There are two main reasons naval is important in the real world. First, there's a lot of water surface, much more than land. Second, you can transport more stuff more cheaply and more flexibly by ship than any other way, and doing so is important (trade and whatnot). So you can use navies to strangle economies.
If Planetary Annihilation doesn't have movement of strategic goods by ship, navies are going to be less important.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'm pretty sure that Liam has reserved half an hour each week to come up with new Wine puns.

Come for the news, stay for the puns.

Huh. That spoonerizes beautifully: "Come for the pews, stay for the nuns".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I like that "seemingly".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just watching the trailer I already had this feeling of "I can't see what's going on". That's not the impression you want from your trailer. Partly it's choppy editing I think--in the interests of speed for a short trailer they're cutting away from each scene before you can assimilate what the hell was happening in it. But partly I think it's that UI Liam was mentioning.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Meh. Only Rubes use this. (rimshot)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This sounds interesting. But I do hope there isn't less to it than meets the eye. There are some rather tired old tropes about interrogation and ethics where it is imagined there is a direct relationship between how unethical you are willing to be and how effectively you will gain information, at which point the ethical question is a simple one of whether the ends justify the means--nowadays generally stacked in favour of "yes". But my understanding is that professionals are often of the opinion that that's not how it actually works--that hard, unethical methods will generally get people to tell you what they think you want to hear, whether it is true or not. So I'll be disappointed if it's in that sort of "24" style.

(The main use of such techniques is for when there actually is something you want to hear, usually so that you can use the forced admission politically in some way. So for instance if you want some terrorist to tell you that Saddam Hussein's regime had relationships with al Qaeda even though the two were deadly enemies, you torture them until they tell you that. Or if you need a fast conviction and don't much care who really committed some ghetto crime, you beat a confession out of someone)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut if you just read the sentence "Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage"--well, what is it then?
Perhaps we could come up with a decent, reasonably well defined distinction between bad greed and good not-exactly-greed, but I would suggest that it's subtle enough to make use of the term pretty defensible . . . especially since nobody seems to quite agree what they want to call it instead.

Let me give it a try:

Everbody deserves its share.
The border between being seekingyouradvantagely and greedy is if you're trying to get "your share" (whatever that may be) or if you're trying to get way more than "your share" (whatever that may be) - and thus eating away from other people's share.

It's clearly hard to say what's on which side (starting with the huge problem of defining "your share" in different parts of the world), but I don't think there's any subtility to the overall difference.

It's "I want what I deserve" contra "I want what you deserve".

If you're going to define greed as anything beyond just trying for "your share", then I think it's going to include a lot of what some of the other people here want to exclude. And it's certainly going to include about all the people I was talking about in my original post that got people annoyed, thus meaning there was no point in bugging me about it.
Let's see . . . one might distinguish greed as the refusal to weight other factors such as causing distress to others when deciding whether to pursue a gain, or something like that. But then, some people are clearly greedy and yet have limits to what they would do for a buck. It's tricky.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI feel you're hurting your point by using the wrong term.

I feel I'm not. We're really at a place in the discussion where there's not much point going further. I get that some people are upset by my use of the term and think it's out of place. I disagree. (shrug)

Quoting: EikeGreed is not the same as seeking your own advantage. Yes, most of us are often driven by monetary advantages (which is probably good enough to prove your original point). Greed is the exzessive, antisocial variant, which I don't think most people adhere to.

Clearly we could have a very subtle semantic argument about this. The distinction I'm seeing is not really in meaning, just that one part of our socialization says "greed is bad" and another part says "seeking your own advantage, entrepreneurialism etc. is good" and so we figure they can't be the same thing, because one is bad and the other is good. But if you just read the sentence "Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage"--well, what is it then?
Perhaps we could come up with a decent, reasonably well defined distinction between bad greed and good not-exactly-greed, but I would suggest that it's subtle enough to make use of the term pretty defensible . . . especially since nobody seems to quite agree what they want to call it instead.

In any case, I couldn't really have used a different term. The point I was making was in reply to someone accusing game developers of greed--not accusing them of enlightened self-interest. And I was saying "Yeah, so?" Trying to mess around with other words would have destroyed the whole point.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Very calming.

View this comment - View article - View full comments