Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

yes, i also think that ChromeOS/ChromeBook is our best bet for sucess, if google fail or give up, i will lose my hope, but hopefully they will not.
windows will probably survive and keep an high marketshare, but at least we will be at an much better position in terms of marketshare, 5,10 maybe even 30% in the future.

Historically, in the computer business, starting from cheap and spreading upwards has a good track record as compared to being the premium offering (although Apple is a counter-example . . . so far). Remember Silicon Graphics? No? Yeah, that's why--they were the premium offering for graphics workstations until intel ate their lunch, breakfast and dinner. Cray was eaten by the Linux Beowulf cluster . . . Then there's the mostly-demise of the mainframe and then of the "workstation" (a la Sun) as cheap Windows and Linux PCs and rack servers and such took over. Chromebooks have a strategy that fits computers well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorne

Quoting: NarvarthIt's more powerful than a docked switch. Is the switch a bad console?

The Switch is a very good console with games that are made especially for its hardware and limitations. Atari is trying to do kind of the same thing by asking developers to make games for their console but they're not Nintendo, it's very doubtful that they can attract big publishers/developers.

If they're smart, they'll try to develop an indie marketplace (like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do) to get the well known games on their system but there's no sign they want to do this. Anyway, it's too soon to say, maybe that's something they'll focus on later. Let's just hope that their reputation doesn't get in the way.

I don't think they have the muscle to do that. At least, not unless and until their doohicky is successful without it. So, either there has to be a big market for it as mainly a thing to play old Atari games and such on, or it has to be beefy enough to play a goodly bunch of other games which are not optimized for it specifically.

Mind you, Linux enthusiasts probably have a higher bar for success on this thing than anyone else, higher than the Atari(ish) people themselves. They may be able to make a profit on the thing if it has modest success in a niche market; that may well be what a win looks like to them. We want it to be basically the Steam Machine that never was, and are disappointed that it doesn't look capable of being that. We're all the more bitter given that prospects for increased Linux market share, both desktop and more directly as a gaming platform, seem to have been evaporating lately. I don't see this thing doing more than making Atari(ish) a modest profit and adding maybe 0.05% market share to games on Linux. But y'know, that's better than nothing. Scraps add up.

Drifting off topic, I do think there are prospects for the Linux (gameplaying) desktop quietly ticking along from another direction: ChromeOS. It appears that they're making a serious push for Chromebooks to run normal Linux apps [External Link]. Google seems to be quietly trying to push Chromebooks gradually up the ladder from their niche in really-wimpy-laptops. They've been very successful in that niche, Chromebooks have done nothing but grow, and methinks they feel they've now got enough recognition, enough positive buzz and familiarity, that they can now start expanding from that base. Inevitably, in the process ChromeOS will converge somewhat with the rest of Linux, drifting away from the whole "browser is everything" vision. Further, if they can run Linux apps in general, presumably they can, and Google will want them to, run Linux games. I think ChromeOS is gradually going to turn into a real competitor for Windows and MacOS, and if it has even medium success Linux gaming could see big boosts over the next few years.
Edited to add: Note publicity such as this [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library GuyEnding the statement with "sad"--I wonder if Atari have decided to go with the "Donald Trump" method of gaining publicity. Machiavelli: "Let them hate, so long as they fear". Trump: "Let them hate, so long as there is buzz".

If we want to continue the Trump analogy, the Atari VCS will have detractor after detractor come forward and tell them it can't be done only for Atari to pull off a brilliant success in the end.

Well, "Let them hate, so long as there is buzz" is actually a quite effective strategy in modern politics. It's very rare for there to be a politician people actually like or respect, so the next best thing is to be disliked but have the most name recognition. Trump is very good at saying and doing things which will get the press to concentrate on him. He may win a second term simply because nobody will have ever heard of whoever challenges him, unless they can draft Oprah or something. Don't know how long the "provocative celebrity" approach will dominate. I think the next stage of American politics will probably be the Berlusconi--after one or two more mergers, someone will end up owning both Fox and CNN et al., and they will be able to run for office with all public voices backing them to the hilt.

I have doubts, however, that name recognition + dislike would be enough to get people to pony up a couple hundred dollars for a game console thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ending the statement with "sad"--I wonder if Atari have decided to go with the "Donald Trump" method of gaining publicity. Machiavelli: "Let them hate, so long as they fear". Trump: "Let them hate, so long as there is buzz".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineShmerl, how do you feel about the revelation that your anti-DRM stance is so vehemently articulated and you're so immovable in your views that you're actually encouraging pro-DRM behaviour from others?

I'm massively anti-MS and I'd be extremely upset to learn that I was so fanatical about my hatred of them that I was actively encouraging my friends and colleagues to use or defend it more, instead of my intention - from them to discover and hopefully try Ubuntu.

That would encourage some harsh introspection, surely? It did with me. As Tim Minchin so eloquently put it in his Commencement Speech to the University of WA [External Link], you should define yourself by what you love. Don't get dragged down by the things you hate. Even if that means taking a knock or two on the way. God knows, MS knows how to hand out a punch, sadly, but I try not to let those define me. I can vouch that it's a much healthier way to live.

While I tend to agree with your sentiments, I find it weird to be referring to Tim Minchin of all people to endorse it. Don't get me wrong, I love Tim Minchin's stuff--but mainly because the sarcasm is so brilliantly scathing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoShmerl, I say this with the kindest, most honest, and honourable intentions... you're a holier-than-thou arrogant ass who doesn't properly listen to anything people say if they contradict your own opinions. Nobody likes someone who won't listen.

I've been watching this from the sidelines, and although this isn't incorrect, I think it would also be fairly accurate to say others haven't really been engaging with Shmerl's position either. Rather, the underlying framework has been roughly "The kind of opinions Shmerl is putting out are 'fanatical', therefore Shmerl is a 'fanatic', therefore everything Shmerl says must be wrong and it's more important to hector him than to discuss because there's no point treating 'fanatics' with respect."

Shmerl's position is not quite as extreme as some have been characterizing it. Basically, he does agree that we don't know the mental state of Feral decision makers, but claims something along the lines of
(1) Whatever their mental state is, it clearly does not involve making an effort to release DRM-free software, thus that mental state cannot be anti-DRM in the same sense as that of others who do make such an effort.
(2) Anyone who releases things with DRM and makes no obvious effort to release anything without DRM is in effect pro-DRM. Even if somewhere in their hearts, Feral decision makers do prefer DRM-free software, such private virtue is worthless if it has no functional result. So for Shmerl, Feral are pro-DRM in the sense that their deeds are the same as the deeds of a pro-DRM group would be; their mental state is almost irrelevant.
(3) Since they won't tell us their mental state, leaving nothing except their functional results as a guide, and their functional results are identical to those of a pro-DRM group, but not identical to those of an anti-DRM group, he thinks it reasonable to treat and describe them as if their mental state matched their actions.

Martin Luther King made roughly the same argument about US "liberals" who were not themselves pro-segregation but resisted the civil rights movement on the basis that it "rocked the boat" and so forth; he considered them almost more of a problem than the actual racists.

The arguments against describing Feral as "pro-DRM" are also compelling. They come down to
(A) We don't know their mental state, so it could be anti-DRM or at least not actively pro-DRM.
(B) There are known, and perhaps unknown, barriers to publishing with GOG, with GOG under Linux in specific, and to some extent to publishing ported games DRM-free at all. It is plausible that Feral may merely not be anti-DRM enough to outweigh these barriers.
(C) We like Feral because they port lots of good games to Linux so we want to give them the benefit of the doubt on moral issues. This is basically an emotional argument, but not less important for that; it can be restated in a more cynical political form--ignoring imperfections in one's allies for the sake of the major objective is an important element of "realpolitik" thinking.

These positions are to some extent talking past each other. Arguments (A) and (B) are arguments about Feral's internal state, which don't really speak to Shmerl's functionalist position--he doesn't care very much what their internal state is. And argument (C) is based on the idea that Linux advocacy is more important than DRM issues. Shmerl seems to have a different politics which considers DRM issues more important, or at least as important, as Linux advocacy. I myself consider the spread of open source operating systems (mainly Linux just now) the more important strategically, but if I did consider DRM (and the legal issues surrounding it) the more important then someone doing something else good wouldn't cut much ice with me if they're doing DRM bad. So again, that's not something people should be expecting will convince Shmerl.

As to arguments with Shmerl about whether DRM is important at all, or whether Steam's usually-pretty-transparent DRM is still a problem . . . Shmerl isn't stupid and he's clearly looked into this stuff a lot. There really are fairly important political and legal issues involved in DRM, and Shmerl clearly cares more about the principles than the details of one scheme versus another. People who don't know or care about the issues Shmerl has read up on are not going to convince him of anything. (I personally think DRM is a relatively minor symptom of much bigger issues around globalized capitalism, and it's not going to get better unless the global trade and "intellectual property" regime are changed in a big way. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about it.)

So you'll just have to agree to disagree. This expectation that all of you dogpiling on Shmerl and not really coming to grips with his position just naturally should have got him to shut up and see how wrong he is, is a delusion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'm not trying to offend anyone (for once ;) ), I am just

bragging.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: Adamfx990Its a shame publishers favour it despite GOG being the far-more consumer-friendly platform.

Oh well now - that totally depends on how you define "user friendly". One of my major arguments for Steam is precisely that it by far the most user friendly alternative, both in regards to the cloud storage of save-games (where that feature is utilised), the unified, cross platform chat feature with friends, and especially in regards to patching. It's all integrated in one client, one framework.

To claim this is not user-friendly is - if I am to be a bit blunt - really quite fanatic from the anti-drm camp. It is exactly what it is - very user friendly. That's the challenge GOG needs to tackle.

While I personally am only mildly annoyed by DRM, I think this post is doing an apples/oranges thing. Adamfx990 said "consumer-friendly", not "user-friendly". You then went and talked about "user-friendly". The terms are distinct. To go to absurd extremes--you could have a platform which featured a telepathic AI which read my mind and instantly downloaded for me any games which I had formed the clear intention to buy, and instantly started a game I wanted to play as soon as I had decided to play it (first cleanly shutting down any other programs I would have wanted to shut down, saving documents etc exactly how I would have done it) and generally responded to my every wish when it came to games--BUT the terms of use included a clause where the company gets to drain my bank account if I ever think of a unicorn. I put it to you that this would be very user-friendly, but not consumer-friendly. One might even argue that corporate AIs reading my mind is inherently not consumer-friendly.
DRM by its nature is not consumer-friendly . . . even if the platform running the DRM is user-friendly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapulandroid indeed has an highter marketshare, but most of the money comes from the iOS market.
making money for iOS is more profitable than for android unfourtunatelly.

Wait, what? How does that work?! I did a quick google--Android is currently at like six times iOS market share. So like, do iphone users pay six times as much for games, or play six times as many games per capita? Or do the "stores" on Android phones take a cut so massive that game publishers only get 1/6th as much money per game?
None of this seems very plausible. I can see iphone users, probably more prosperous than Android users on average (both individually and considering that wealthier countries buy more iphones), paying and playing somewhat more each. But enough to outweigh the massive difference in numbers? I'm finding that frankly hard to believe.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I believe what Eike is getting at is that there are cases in which free speech creates actual harm. There are always edge cases--the main point of free speech is to protect expression of political opinions in disagreement with either the authorities or the majority of the citizens.
But stray from politics and there are always necessary limits; a naive extension of free speech absolutism about political expression to other realms just doesn't work. Examples of speech that nobody ever worries about criminalizing: Speech intended to seduce minors, speech in the service of fraud (eg phishing), false advertising . . . speech rights can come into conflict with other rights. The question is always just where to draw the lines, not whether there are any. Personally, I've found for instance that well moderated discussion lists which draw some lines are way better than "anything goes" lists because while in theory "anything goes" allows more freedom of speech, in practice what it allows is intimidation and the tactical use of offensiveness to drive away people who aren't megacombative. Given that, it could be argued that in largely declining to draw any lines, Valve are copping out, failing to protect other things, as much as they are protecting speech.

But it's all about the specifics. I don't really see the need to put a lot of limits to "speech" in the case of offensive computer games. There are very few games I see as posing a huge issue offensiveness-wise, and those few are probably covered by Steam's "trolling" category. Everything else might cause someone who stumbled upon it with tender sensibilities some mild shock, but that's about the least important reason for limiting speech and just not good enough IMO. Further, most games that could be a problem are only offensive if they are pushed at a customer against their will. But those games aren't going to be--the headline games you just see on the front page aren't like that (unless you can't handle the basic computer game foundation that ultra-violence is OK, but then you should maybe go play scrabble), and the "recommended" games are generally only going to show "offensive" content of types your history suggests interest in. So for the most part, if you want to be offended by a game you're going to have to search for it. In which case, your problem--if someone actively goes looking for things to be offended by, they can live with what they get.

View this comment - View article - View full comments