Quoting: linuxgamer

Quoting: GuestThat’s a terrible name.

I totally disagree, its an epic name cause its german.

Well, sort of maybe. My money is on, it's the god Vulcan mis-spelled because the version with a "c" was already taken. That would be the Roman version of the god of the forge, whose Greek version is Hephaestus. Vulcan is associated with volcanoes because forging, fire, stuff like that. It seems likely to me that the Germans got their word for volcano from Vulcan anyhow, having been culturally influenced by the Romans and Latin since way back (I know German is, obviously, not a Romance language, but it would be far from the only non-Romance language to borrow some words).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorneSteamOS and the Steam Machines are only a way of acquiring new customers on Steam (the console players). They're not meant at all to replace existing systems, they're here to complement them.

I'm pretty sure that Valve doesn't really care is the Steam Machines are a failure, they don't even sell them. If they fail, the loss will be on the hardware partners. they won't promote them as a way to replace Windows setups, they'll do it as a way to have a second PC for the living room. The fact that it runs Linux is really a detail.

I don't think that's true. Gabe was fairly specific about Linux being a strategic move. He said that he doesn't like where Windows is going and he prefers open platforms. It has also been speculated that Valve fears Microsoft's move towards app stores threatening Steam's business model. It seems likely that Valve would prefer to kill Windows and is committed to Linux as one of the main means to that end and to some other goals relating to gaming and the directions they want to take their business. But I'd agree that they're not willing to push that ambition hard enough to piss off their existing Windows customers. They're far better off trying to win with carrots than sticks; they don't have the leverage to do it the other way even if that were their style which I don't get the impression it is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A few different reactions. First, I'm confident the Steam Machines will be along. No idea how well they'll succeed, but Valve and Gabe seem to have long time horizons on their major projects; a delay is just that, a delay while they get their ducks in a row. And the negative articles don't bother me. In something like this, the old saying is true: No publicity is bad publicity. Articles that badmouth the Steam Machine sight unseen are articles that keep the Steam Machine in the public eye. No problem.

On the other hand, I'm not as confident as Mr. Dawe about the independent prospects of Linux gaming. Bottom line, the Linux desktop represents 1-2% of the desktop PC gaming market, well below Mac levels. Right now, there's Valve backing and there's a vogue for Linux ports. Is it a genuine trend or a fad? Well, in the end the question is whether ports can make money selling to Linux users. If there are zero Linux users, by definition they can't make money doing it. If there are hardly any, it boils down to costs vs. extra sales, so the costs have to be very low indeed before it's worth it. Now, game engines have moved towards porting costs being lower. But are they going to be consistently so low that 1% of the PC gaming market (not the whole gaming market, just the PC part) will really be consistently worth a port? It's iffy at best. None of this IMO has much to do with the quality of the Linux desktop itself, which by me is pretty primo; more a matter of specific historical issues relating to monopolistic practices and corporate marketing strategies.

The Humble Bundles kind of got Linux ports back on the radar a little bit, at least among indies. And the early Humble Bundles tended to sell a disproportionate amount on Linux, because Linux users were so starved for games that everyone who gamed at all on Linux leaped on them Humble Bundles like starving wolves and paid extra just to say "Thanks for thinking of us, you guys rock!" So that helped create momentum. But that effect goes away as more games get ported. I suspect there's an equilibrium level where the "Larger percentage of users buying" effect dies down enough that past that point, more ports don't get enough market share from the Linux side to make it worth while. I don't know where that level is. We may not be there yet . . . or we may be, and the only reason this many games is being ported is based on fad, developer cultural fondness for Linux, encouragement from Valve, and anticipation of a bigger Linux market soon from the Steam Machines. If some of those masking factors were to drop away, we might find the level of Linux ports would drop again to wherever that equilibrium turns out to be. And if that equilibrium is low, eventually game engines might let their support rot again, making ports pricier again and dropping the equilibrium still further.

So I think it's perhaps overoptimistic to say we don't need the Steam Machine. We need either the Steam Machine or some other source of strong Linux-as-a-PC-game-platform adoption. The iron is hot right now; Valve primarily and some other factors secondarily have nuked the chicken-and-egg problem vis-a-vis games and the Linux platform until it glows . . . for the moment. Accelerate Linux desktop adoption right now, or see successful advent of the Steam Machine as a major platform, and it could stay nuked, with larger market share leading to more ports and vice versa in a virtuous cycle. Fail to and we could end up pretty much back where we started, albeit with a nice back catalogue of games. Mind you, I could be wrong--if the cost of porting has become so cheap that doing it is a no-brainer even with very few sales. Or if the pro-Linux mindset among game developers has become so strong that it can ignore market realities on an ongoing basis.

Ultimately, sometime in the indefinite future, I do think the Linux desktop will rise no matter how this stuff works itself out right now, just as Linux has come to take over so many other spaces. And at that time the gaming issue will solve itself. But it will happen much sooner if Valve's play for a Linux gaming platform is successful.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlGood to see them considering GOG. I'm not sure why he assumes that Steam is the most active for Linux users. A lot of Linux users avoid DRMed platforms.

True. But on the other hand, I think there's a perception that Valve is the single force most responsible for the current wave of Linux game availability. That may lead to a certain attachment to the Steam platform that overrides some people's preferences for DRM-free. Works that way for me, for the most part.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That looks pretty cool. And yes, I've been kind of wishing for more Starcraft-like games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MajorLunaCTell me one single reason EA would want anything to do with Linux, when even Unity wants nothing more to do with Linux because it's "not a viable market." And don't give me any optimistic bs, I'm talking business-wise. What do these companies stand to gain? (The most important question in anything "Who stands to gain?") Especially considering their view of Linux. Microsoft has been aiming to tear down or profit from Linux since its beginning:
http://techrights.org/comes-iowa-trial-exhibits/
http://techrights.org/category/novell/
EA has been involved with Microsoft plenty, as have some of the other companies.

What do they have to gain? Is a solid question. And in the case of Microsoft in specific I do wonder; it wouldn't surprise me that much if they were there to sabotage the whole thing. DirectX is their baby and they have plenty reasons not to want competition. Since this is obvious, they probably won't have much influence on the technology, though, and likely they know it; they're probably there mainly to keep up with developments so they'll know what, if anything much, they're up against.

But when it comes to others such as EA, they have lots to gain.
--Even if they intend to use primarily DirectX, it's good for them if DirectX has viable competition; everyone knows Microsoft gets abusive and sloppy when it has a monopoly, so you need to keep 'em honest by making sure they have to keep up with and/or undersell someone. Even people who normally use DirectX don't want the supplier of DirectX to have them over a barrel.
--Cross-platform doesn't just mean Linux. There are more platforms now and the way things are going it would seem platforms will just fragment from here. There's consoles. There's mobile. There's semi-mobile, like tablets, many of them on ARM and not necessarily running Windows. There's the proliferation of dinky Chromebooks, which don't run a lot of games now but they seem popular so it's likely they'll only diversify; there's an opportunity there. Potentially there's Steam Machines. So where does DirectX run? Windows PC and kinda Xbox. So, the shrinking platform and one console. If next-gen OpenGL can run everywhere, it offers massively greater profit opportunities than DirectX.

So yeah, I think gaming companies such as EA have significant, and depending on how future platform fragmentation goes crucial, potential gains from a strong next-generation GL.
I also don't think having the name "Open" in it or not means diddly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine(That's the third time I've posted this link! It's really, really worthwhile - I'm enjoying how tear-free all my games have become since doing it)

Oh, good. I hate it when my games get torn.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Since I play mostly 4X games, not a lot of really scary moments, you know? Unless you count the first time in Master of Orion II when the screen suddenly shifts from the game to a shot of the Antarans coming down a wormhole at you and telling you they're going to exterminate you. But . . . nah.

Thriller? Depends what counts. The Professional was pretty awesome; I've been a Jean Reno fan ever since. Sexy Beast was very good if it's a thriller. And, this might strike some as odd, but The Crying Game. Aside from the . . . different . . . twist that got everyone's attention, it was actually a pretty tense and well-acted story about betrayal and revenge in the IRA. Had some good lines, too. Main character being hassled, has had enough, quietly asks the guy, "Ever try to pick up your teeth with broken fingers?"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, wait, this colossus of a game that everyone's been raving about is something where you can't save?!
Yeah, OK, I'll wait until February or whenever.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

All in all, if the changes from the previous version are a matter of small incremental, polish-level adjustments, that's a Good Thing which suggests they're pretty close to ready. If they were still making radical changes which they would then have to start testing from scratch, that would be a Bad Thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments