Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: SilverCode

Quoting: eldakingI think there was one more step [External Link], with Improbable claiming that Unity had explicitly told them they were not in violation and the entire "notified one year ago" was solved.

Anyway, it is certainly an advancement on one front, but proprietary software is still a huge liability.

As for the other companies involved, you know what would be actually cool? If Epic, instead of opportunistically giving money for people to use their (equally proprietary) engine, open sourced Unreal to actually solve the issue. Or if Improbable partnered with Godot instead.

Unreal Engine 4 is already Open Source. Do you maybe not mean change the license to be a more permissive royalty free one?

No, UE4 is NOT open source. Their license requirements are far from being in compliance with the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated [External Link]

You can view something's sources? Open source to me.
I don't think a website called opensource.org gets to define what open source is or isn't by putting up additional requirements.

As that would lead to sentences like "The sources are open, but it isn't open source."
That just doesn't sound right to me.

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBy definition, an open source engine could not have "the current license situation" because whether something is open source is determined by whether the license gives you rights that don't allow this kind of situation to happen. It's about freedom, not just being able to look at code.

It's about freedom, but you can add commercial limitations. Just like Mysql license does.

My understanding of the MySQL situation is, it's dual licensed. It's available under the GPL, or if you want to do something the GPL does not allow (like, mainly, embed it in a closed source thing and then distribute that thing), you can buy it under a commercial license which is not open source. So there is not one open source license which enforces weird commercial-license-type shenanigans. There is an open source license which works like open source, and there is a commercial license which does not.

That's my point. You can be open source (because your code product is freely available) but you can put limitations on commercial products that were based on your work.

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBy definition, an open source engine could not have "the current license situation" because whether something is open source is determined by whether the license gives you rights that don't allow this kind of situation to happen. It's about freedom, not just being able to look at code.

It's about freedom, but you can add commercial limitations. Just like Mysql license does.

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: einherjarIf I look at the things like exclusives in Epic Store, Discord, Ubisoft heading away from Steam and so on, I don't think that there will be a lot of AAA Titles on Steam....
So proton perhaps won't bring as AAA Titles, because they don't appear on Steam :-(

I am not aware that Epic had an interesting exclusive other than Fortnite itself, which is that current hype game without the store would probably collapse inside 5 mins.

Ubi - either I am missing something, or they still sell their titles on Steam, they just require a link to UPlay to work.

The only larger publishers I am aware of that consistently refuse to sell on Steam are EA and Blizz, and those have been doing so for a long time now.

Ubisoft recently announced that The Division 2 is skipping Steam in favour of the Epic Store, is what they mean.

A trend that will increase as Epic Games throw money around and act like the really good guy. I expect Valve to make multiple interesting moves this year.

Quoting: GuestYou don't to understand a couple of things about GNU/Linux. First, is that it's truly open, and no forcing one way on everyone. One way might end being used, but it's not forced - don't like it, pick another distro.
But, the second thing to understand is that despite all the distros, it's actually kind of simple to bundle a game to run on the vast, vast, majority...if not all of them.

Quoting: x_wingBy the way, I don't think that an open source engine would have make any difference with the current license situation. From my point of view, even if Unity was open source they could have block the SpatialOS as they did with their license modification.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: sub

Quoting: lelouch

Quoting: cRaZy-bisCuiT7 nm but only GTX 2080 performance? Why? For the same price?

Nice only because we got a open well performing driver on Linux for AMD. Still I'm not much impressed.

Half of the structure (14nm -> 7nm) cannot bring you double of the performance, because the are negative physical effects working against you (read a physics book for details).

Integration density ideally scales quadratically with the inverse of the structure size.
Hence, half the structure size should roughly result in a 4 times higher integration density.

Yet there are many contribution of losses that do not allow performance to scale linearly with the integration density.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I have been told after the 22nm process the advertised number should not be taken too literally. Circuits are not engraved like labyrinths with tidy vertical walls. There are made of several layers of material. Each one having a different width. So a 7nm process does not necessarily have the double of the density of a 14nm process.

I do not know much more. :)

Quoting: mylkai dont see AMD winning here. at least nvidia has a competitor again and i hope both lower the prices for the new generation soon

up to 42 percent higher performance in Strange Brigade 1"

Quoting: jens

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI've never talked to Mussolini, and yet I feel fairly confident in calling him a jerk and reject the idea that it is cheap to do so.

If people's actions and statements are on the public record one can often be quite justified in forming judgements about their character without actually meeting them. I don't personally know whether the information about NVidia management is such as to justify such a judgement, but it certainly could be; insisting personal contact is needed is just mistaken.
And actually contrariwise, it's also possible to have met and talked to someone and not have the information you would need to determine whether they're a jerk. So personal contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for knowledge of jerk-hood.

Well, yes and no ;)
Your statement is technically completely correct and you have effectively proven that my statement is wrong. :)

That said, my opinion is still that I grant people the advantage if I don't know them. Lets say "innocent until proven guilty". Furthermore I draw quite a clear distinction between judging actions of someone "his actions are jerky" versus judging the person itself "he is a jerk". Actually I'm quite sensible on this, may be that's why my reactions here were quite strong. I do agree that there are actual jerks out there that deserve to be called jerks. Though I'm pretty convinced that the typical manager of a company is doing the best in his capabilities to help his company and his team to prosper. There are most likely jerks among them, but as stated, I prefer to grant advantage and prefer not to judge the person based on actions that seem jerky to me or anybody else. I'm fine with calling some action jerky, but I prefer to keep the respect of the actual person until there is really no way to misjudge like with your example.

Related to that a question, how offending is the word "jerk"? I, non native English speaker, would give it lets say a 6 on a scale from 1 (like you would talk with kids when they behave somewhat clumsy) to 10 (very offending). Is this correct?

On a side note: I understand that your example was to effectively highlight your point and not to compare a random NVidia manager with Mussolini. With the last US election I decided for myself to skip pseudo comparisons with actual criminals of mankind. During that time you could read quite some columns of people that compared the new US administration with the German Nazi regime. As a response to that I read in another column that no matter how "evil" one thinks of the new Potus, he is not and will most likely never be a mass murderer of millions of people. That is a completely different magnitude. Any comparison like this will not paint a better picture of what to expect in the future but will only soften/weaken the crimes of the Nazi regime and hurt the victims of that time.
I decided for myself to keep that in mind. As stated, I did not read that comparison in your statement, but I thought I would share this.