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

Quoting: kuhpunktBut what would the point be? What's the difference to a normal computer now? Consoles are made so that you use their OS/store. Again, what would be the incentive? What could you do with it that you can't do with a PC right now? Exclusivity would be silly and pretty much impossible.

Hmmm, well, presumably it would be a computer, running SteamOS, with all VR-oriented software installed and running smoothly, using components (particularly but not only the graphics card) that were known to be capable of handling VR stuff, and drivers vetted to not be glitchy with VR thingies. When you fired up Steam, it would default to showing VR things first. It might have a few of the most popular VR titles pre-installed. It would come with relevant hardware for VR things--headset, glove-y things and whatever--again, already with drivers, ready to work out of the box, and with user-friendly configuration software installed and easily discoverable.

The result wouldn't technically be any different from buying a PC and VR hardware and installing all the stuff and maybe fighting with the drivers and glitches and whatever, and then realizing you had to upgrade something because your PC wasn't really ready for VR. But the experience could be significantly different. Consoles are technically just a locked-down form of personal computer which you get for cheap and then pay a bit extra for every time you buy a game. Kind of a lousy deal, and yet there they are making a killing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: stretch611

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMinor pet peeve . . . none of the games literally flew off the digital shelves. You're thinking of games that figuratively flew off the digital shelves. :P

Maybe they literally teleported off the digital shelves straight to the computers. :P

I believe they literally replicated, then teleported the clones.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HoriValve should invest in *proper* VR games, and then release a new console focused on VR, *made by Valve* not third parties, and based on SteamOS. They should, this way, be able to "annex" the VR gaming market while it's young and easy to do so.
Obviously that console would also be able to play regular games as well - kinda like a Steam machine but it would be focused on VR.

And let me say this again: It should be made by Valve. If other manufacturers also want to make one, fine. But there should always be the option of buying an official, Valve-made unit - which should be used as a reference by the other manufacturers, by defining a standard. Kinda like how we have official Nvidia (Founder's Edition) cards, and we also have ASUS, MSI, etc cards based on it.

Indeed, kind of like how back in the day, there were "IBM PCs" and there were clones. That worked out pretty well for the PC architecture (not sure how well IBM made out from it; I hear they let some young shark named Gates make all the software profit).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: ShmerlPeople don't use something because of exclusives, but because the platform offers something useful to them.

Call me shallow

You're shallow!

. . . What? But he told me to!

View this comment - View article - View full comments