Quoting: STiAT

and the C# reference source code is released under a license which only permits you to read the code, not modify it.

That means they're giving us the source code but don't let us help improve and bugfix the engine/editor if something is found? That's quite a strange step. Nobody says they'd have to give royalties out of hand, but that's a little strange to me. Maybe just the first step.

The point is, if you want it, legally you still have to buy it. If they open source it, they can still charge for it, but they can't stop other people from distributing it for free, so who'd pay? They'd need some kind of support model or something to not go out of business.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TheRiddickMS and NVIDIA would be very happy if Vulkan died off, or developers steer away from it. But realistically who wants to forever be locked in to Windows10 and XBOX1 platform? at least who in their right mind would...

Actually I think that many studios would be happy to be locked to a single platform like XBOX1 if this also meant that all customers where locked into it and there where no middle man taking 30% of the profits.

That would be the rub, though (well, one of them). Once all your customers are stuck on one platform and you're dependent on the tools made by the vendor of that platform, they can take as much of your profits as they want, because you have no other choices. It's the vendor's tools or you're not selling anything.
Why do people think companies struggle so hard to gain monopolies? Why do people think laws got passed against monopolies in the first place?

Yes, I am fully aware of the dangers of vendor lock in and/or monopoly but I'm not 100% sure that all studios are. My original comment was an observation not an opinion :)

Well, you may be quite right about that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThat would be the rub, though (well, one of them). Once all your customers are stuck on one platform and you're dependent on the tools made by the vendor of that platform, they can take as much of your profits as they want, because you have no other choices. It's the vendor's tools or you're not selling anything.
Why do people think companies struggle so hard to gain monopolies? Why do people think laws got passed against monopolies in the first place?

the issue is, is not an monopoly.
its sony (ps4) vs nintendo (switch) vs microsoft (xbox and windows with play anywhere) vs valve and others on pc.

game makers have no reason to support linux, if it where: one side linux, other side microsoft monopoly, sure, some of then would chose to support either linux or both linux and windows.
but that is not the case, they arent afraid of ms monopoly that aint gonna happen.

sure support windows/mac/linux is cool, that is a reason to use vulkan.
but xbox right now is more profitable than mac and linux.

android could be a savior for us, but the types of games that are made for android are very different from the ones made for pc/console.

Final fantasy 15 tried to make an dumbed down version for mobile (ff15 pocket edition) i'm not sure if it sold well, but it has completely different assets.

now with the remake of secret of mana, they made graphics that could be ported to mobile easily (instead of dumb down the graphics).

other than that examples, i dont see companies having more incentive to use vulkan than to use DX12.
if they can afford they will use both to see where they get better results.

game engines on the other hand, have clients that make games for mobile and clients that make games for pc or console, they have an good reason to use vulkan (or both but giving priority to vulkan)

Your comment isn't really relevant to what I was saying. I was commenting on the idea that many studios would be happy to be locked to a single platform, and making a general point about the implications of such locking. In the abstract, like. It wasn't about the specifics of what platforms what is on right now.

But, talking of such specifics, your comment also misses a huge factor. It may become accurate in the future, but right now there is another huge platform that DX12 does not cover and Vulkan does: Windows < 10. Mostly Win7 I guess. There's still a LOT of that out there, and there will be for a couple-three years yet. So unless you're expecting your game to have a pretty dang robust "long tail", the "Not yet on Windows 10" market looms large, and you lose it if you go DX12.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: Guestlet me just start cooking this conspiracy bacon
it's because big publishers want to help microsoft create a pc gaming monopoly

No , they don't want that. But they don't want to move on to more secure solutions either because of this MS threat.

Because it didn't happen yet.

A wise man once said this:

"Installing Linux is sort of the equivalent of moving to Canada when one doesn’t like US political trends.

Nope, we’ve got to fight for the freedoms we have today, where we have them today."

Tim Sweeney-2018

Well, except that in theory the United States is a democracy that has freedoms one could fight for, and with. So like in theory you could agitate politically and elect better politicians and create positive political change. And even if one considers that theory largely fake in the current situation, an American is still a citizen of the United States, in some sense an equal stakeholder in the country with every other citizen, and as a citizen a bearer not just of rights but responsibilities to the country. Although there are limits, and I for one welcome American refugees coming to Canada.
Windows is not a country, and Windows users are not citizens, they are not stakeholders, they have no freedoms to fight for, no rights and no responsibilities. Windows is entirely owned by Microsoft, not by its users. To the extent Microsoft has any responsibilities they are to its shareholders; customers are just the suckers it has a responsibility not to give an even break. Leaving Windows because it has problems is not remotely comparable to abandoning the United States when it has problems, and the comparison is not at all wise. So a wise man might have said it, but he must have been having an off day.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: strycoreI see this as a good thing. First, if you want to play Doom on Linux. it runs great on Wine, for the exact same reasons the ID team got it running easily on Linux.

Second, this give a slap in the face of a small but vocal subset of the Linux community, made up of people who believe Linux ports are only a matter of engines, middleware, DirectX vs OpenGL, etc. There's nothing wrong with those Linux users, except they have to stop being so naive, hence this is why the ID move is badly needed for those users to wake up.

Steam on Linux has been around for a while now, people should start to understand that Linux ports don't get done because they are easy to make, because the game is using SDL or Vulkan or whatever other library native to Linux. Linux ports happen because business managers sign contracts to get the port done. That's it. Software developers do not make business decisions, releasing a Linux version of a game is a business decision, not a technical one.

You say that like the two are separate. Business decisions revolve around whether a course of action will make a profit. What something in the computer gaming industry will cost is a technical question. If it technically will cost 120 (mythical) man-months from developers clocking in at $100,000 a year each to port something to Linux, that is a different business proposition from if it will cost 12 or 3 such man-months. Profit = revenue - costs. If costs are lower, it takes less revenue to make a profit. So, the correct answer in a business decision depends on technical factors. Like whether a port is easy to make.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TheRiddickMS and NVIDIA would be very happy if Vulkan died off, or developers steer away from it. But realistically who wants to forever be locked in to Windows10 and XBOX1 platform? at least who in their right mind would...

Actually I think that many studios would be happy to be locked to a single platform like XBOX1 if this also meant that all customers where locked into it and there where no middle man taking 30% of the profits.

That would be the rub, though (well, one of them). Once all your customers are stuck on one platform and you're dependent on the tools made by the vendor of that platform, they can take as much of your profits as they want, because you have no other choices. It's the vendor's tools or you're not selling anything.
Why do people think companies struggle so hard to gain monopolies? Why do people think laws got passed against monopolies in the first place?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Only thing is, Hell sounds kind of fun. Why are they trying to escape again? (Well, I might be since I'm really not a party person)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lucifertdark

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: lucifertdarkThe only reason I keep Windows around is for Lightroom as it sucks in Wine.

Have you tried Darktable? I've never used Lightroom so I can't say how well it compares, but for me it's more than enough.

Thanks for the reminder about Darktable, I tried it a couple of years ago & wasn't impressed at the time, I'll have to install it & see if things have improved since then.

Always worth re-checking open source projects that aren't good enough for your purposes every 2-3 years; things do gradually change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: orochi_kyoThese extreme hipsters are annoying, I support open software and indie gaming, but if big companies opens a door to developers for publish their games, why not taking the chance?
Steam contrary to console platforms are not signing exclusive deals, you can release your game everywhere, GOG, your site, Itch, Steam, etc.
Its Steam, not stupid Monsanto or Bayer.

Exactly how did you work in Monsanto here? Let's not go down the rabbit hole of those pro pseudoscience anti-GMO folks.

GMO crops are a lot like DRM on games. DRM makes games harder to play and maintain, and doesn't do what it's advertised to do (stop piracy), but it does allow invocation of draconian laws to control consumer behaviour (and in some cases, the behaviour of competitors). Genetic modification is bad for the crops and the consumers, but the point is it lets you patent those crops and thereby shut down competition, control farmers, etc. For the corporations involved, the actual benefits any given genetic modification is supposed to provide are almost beside the point (except "Round-up Ready", because that lets them sell vastly more herbicide).
Don't get me wrong, I find the technologies of genetic modification fascinating. But, they are currently not mature. Before CRISPR, the main approach involved sticking a gene on a tiny golden cannonball and shooting the thing randomly into a cell's nucleus and hoping something stuck. Imagine shooting code randomly into a computer program and expecting it to do only whatever that piece of code was "supposed" to be for. If the patenting angle didn't allow for monopoly profits they'd still be largely in the lab.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Guess I'm a bit old school--people keep talking about Leaving Lyndow and I keep seeing it as "Leaving Lindows [External Link]".

View this comment - View article - View full comments