Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: x_wingMany games that works flawlessly with proton are reported as just "gold" or "silver"][...] the game works flawlessly after running the windows workaround .

That's not flawless, that's "working after applying workarounds", that's gold or even silver.

See, that's the problem with those reports, claims of platinum status, claimed by experienced wine users. That's what leads to disappointment after disappointment by newbies who can't even get to the main menu screen before something shitty happens.
This is in fact why wine is given up by so many, myself included.

Hang on, though--it's the same problem you'd have under Windows, and the same workaround you'd have to use in Windows. How can something whose behaviour is identical to the Windows version not be platinum?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: jens

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: jensSo you had an interview with somebody from the Nvidia management?

It's not developers' decision, or you expected otherwise for some reason?

You called their management people jerks, so I guess you ever talked to one of them and can justify your statement? See above, if you don't like their decisions, just fine and you are rightful to do that. But calling someone a jerk you have never talked to (my assumptions) is just cheap and below every level.

I'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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I do find that an interesting comment. It's not like Stardock have ever been Linux enthusiasts, so to get their attention and interest on Linux would take something fairly compelling.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: razing32Wondering if Liam will ever run out of puns. :P

I will need to take off these rosé tinted glasses.

I'm not breaking out the sham-pagne right now . . . with this level of pun, we're talking real pain.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: backplate101time and time again wine proves to them that their applications can work in linux. the least they can do is what valve did by introducing proton.

No, I think they can do a lot less than that. And if I had to guess, I'd say we'll all be finding out just how little the least they can do is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: ecosvaldoEven IF their store supported Linux, it still will not get me to use their platform. Why? One word... Tencent. They ALMOST have controlling interest in Epic Games (around 48 - 49%)!

Ehhh, for practical purposes that's controlling unless there are no small shareholders at all. I know, in theory you need 50%+1, but in practice you need more votes than will be cast against you, and there will always be a fair number of shareholders who don't get the memos or aren't interested and don't vote their shares. So 48% is plenty to win any plausible vote. You can often have control with 30% or so!

Epic is however a private company and not a public one so the other 51.6% is most likely owned by the founders or some other investors, but more important for the question at hand is that it's owned by a small circle of people so there will not bee a situation where some shareholders don't get the memo or aren't interested.

For public companies it's quite often (for the big ones) to have several share classes where the one listed on an exchange have either no or very little voting rights. One example is Google where Page and Brin owns 59.16% of the votes due to them owning a lot of the B class shares (their A class gives 1 vote, B class gives 10 votes and C class gives zero votes where only the A and C classes are publicly traded).

All very true. And of course they could also form some sort of alliance with one member of such a small circle of shareholders. So really it's very hard to tell from the outside just who has control. But I think we can suspect that Tencent wouldn't have accumulated that much of an interest in one company if they didn't have some hope of controlling it . . . so I guess we really don't know if they have control or not, but we can be pretty sure they were giving it a try, whether they succeeded or failed.

Edited to add: If the info Kristian cites is correct, they don't . . . or didn't at that time, anyhow. Or, Sweeney could be kidding himself. The emphasis on seven firms seems a bit off, makes it sound like oh, Tencent is just one small player among many . . . but they can't all have bought a 40% stake! One way or another, it's interesting information. Nobody's going in big like that without anticipation of payoff. Presumably a big deal like that was put together in anticipation of some major move by Epic which would cost a lot of money but have big profit potential . . . such as, say, creating a game store that could really grab some market share from Steam.

Perhaps a pity we have little choice but to be agin' it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mao_dze_dunIt's absolutely painful to read how detached from reality some people are. This is why we can't have nice things on Linux. From b*tt-hurt comments about why the Epic store doesn't have a Linux version planned to absurd conspiracy theories. We should set a Patreon goal called "aluminum foil", so that we can buy the lot of you material to make nice hats.

The Epic store is absurdly barebones. Epic thought they could get away with a very cut down version of a game store, but reality slapped them in the face pretty fast. So now they need to integrate a crap ton of stuff Steam has, to make users happy. Anybody who is not completely insane would prioritize that over a Linux version, because there are more Windows gamers who care about achievements, than there are Linux gamers overall. It's basic math. I am 100% sure Linux support is happening. Don't forget - we're still waiting on GOG Galaxy, which is why I only play GOG games on Windows.

I'm not even going to comment on the whole Tencent conspiracy theory. Somebody even mentioned the Chinese government. Seriously guys?

You're very rude.
We have many nice things on Linux, but to the extent we can't, it has nothing to do with people commenting on forums. Talk about detached from reality. Yes, yes, I know it was meant as hyperbole, but if you're going to criticize people's lack of realism it's bad form to lead with total lack of realism.
Continuing on with lack of realism, the reality is they say Linux support isn't on the roadmap. Why then are you saying it's somehow a ridiculous conspiracy theory for people to be talking like Linux support isn't on the roadmap? I would think (although these Epic guys admittedly don't seem to be captains of communication) that if Linux support had been on the radar but got bumped to lower priority because they suddenly realized they need features, that still would mean Linux support was on the roadmap, just at a low priority. If they say it's not on the roadmpap, that would mean they haven't seriously considered it. Sure, maybe someday it'll happen, but if they're not planning for it I don't see why we should be.

Tencent . . . if, as someone says upthread, Tencent own over 40% of Epic shares, it's hardly a conspiracy theory to expect Tencent's objectives will have some influence on the behaviour of a company they control. Rather, it would be bizarre to imagine otherwise. Why would Tencent's ownership be so stupid as not to make use of one asset to advance the profitability of other holdings if they had the opportunity? This is not mysterious voodoo; the suits call it "synergy".

All in all, I'd say your snide swipe at, uh, basically everyone here, is way farther from reality on every point you make than the people you're insulting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ecosvaldoEven IF their store supported Linux, it still will not get me to use their platform. Why? One word... Tencent. They ALMOST have controlling interest in Epic Games (around 48 - 49%)!

Ehhh, for practical purposes that's controlling unless there are no small shareholders at all. I know, in theory you need 50%+1, but in practice you need more votes than will be cast against you, and there will always be a fair number of shareholders who don't get the memos or aren't interested and don't vote their shares. So 48% is plenty to win any plausible vote. You can often have control with 30% or so!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ertuquequeMoments like these make me really wish for a crazy developer who publishes a Linux exclusive high-ish profile game!... But sadly, that's VERY unlikely to happen... Although, who knows... I'm starting to learn Godot, maybe I'll be the one who does it in a few years, ;)

I guess in the mean while we'll be . . .
Waiting for Godot. (rimshot)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 1xokValve is not listed on the stock exchange. They have a lot of money, but big companies like Tencent have a lot more. Valve has already ruled by lowering prices for top sellers. Epic can be much more generous:

https://www.pcgamer.com/epics-tim-sweeney-reveals-how-the-company-lands-exclusives-for-the-epic-store/ [External Link]

Tencent is pretty dashed big. But not being listed on the stock exchange is irrelevant--Valve is certainly big enough to be listed, they're just a private company so they're not. And the way things are done these days, all else being equal being private is probably an advantage; the stock market constrains companies to basically not do strategy, only short term tactics. Nowadays the only reason to go public is you can't get money to expand any other way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments