Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: ArehandoroNo anarchism? Not real nor politics...

Surely it isn't a political system. Or are you one of those people who don't see the irony in organized anarchism? :)

There is actually no irony in organized anarchism. An + archy = no ruler. Not, no rules. It's perfectly possible to be organized without a boss.

You won't find your definition in a dictionary.

You will find it in the traditions of Anarchism as a movement and in the basic derivation of the word. Please don't talk down to me on this issue, I have paid a good deal of attention to it over a large number of years; I may be wrong about it, but not in ways that can be got at with facile one-liners. The notion of Anarchism as a sort of every-man-for-himself crazy chaos thing is a largely North American one, while Anarchism's roots are mostly European. This false picture comes from a combination of propaganda, conflation with the distinctively American "Libertarian" ideology which actually is a bit like that, and idiot teenagers in coffee shops wearing black and blabbering about smashing the (whatever).

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhether anarchism is feasible on a sizable scale, like say national, is a different question. But technology is making it more feasible on broader scales of late years. Once upon a time it might have been claimed that complex self-organized leaderless projects collaborating across the globe would be an impossibility. Heck, not so long ago you just wouldn't have strung those words together because it was way past the horizon of what people would think about. But now? Take a bow, various large open source software projects from Debian to Apache.

Quoting: tuubiTake another look at the internal politics of these software projects. Far from anarchistic I'd say. More like highly organized and bureaucratic in Debian's case. And none of these projects have prospered without leaders.

Returning to my simple and basic point, it is perfectly possible--indeed, almost mandatory at any size--for anarchy to be highly organized and bureaucratic.
As to leaders . . . well, to some extent, but define "leader". Someone designated to do a task isn't a leader. Do policies get decided unilaterally by these leaders?
Heck, even in those Free Software projects, like Linux, with a benevolent dictator, the whole thing is kind of weird--these benevolent dictators have no power to coerce because not only is membership voluntary but the whole deal can be forked.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThere was a time when technology didn't support national-scale representative democracy; for that you need a certain level of communication and transportation across the country, and probably the printing press.

Quoting: tuubiRight. A level of technology an anarchistic society would have had a hard time achieving. :)

Yes, yes, how cute.
It's not so much that anarchistic societies couldn't work in the old days, or would have had less capacity for technological improvement. It's more a Celts-vs-Romans problem: Anarchistic societies could only get so big, and that maximum workable size was much much smaller than a despotic empire. With low tech, centralized is the only way to be big. So if you have dozens of decentralized tribes without much authority and one despotic god-king looking to expand, the math is pretty easy.
But with modern communications things potentially become different. It's clear that there are changes happening to just what kinds of social/political organization are possible. We have yet to really explore all the possibilities that new technologies unlock. I think it's quite plausible that larger-scale anarchism is one of them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: ArehandoroNo anarchism? Not real nor politics...

Surely it isn't a political system. Or are you one of those people who don't see the irony in organized anarchism? :)

There is actually no irony in organized anarchism. An + archy = no ruler. Not, no rules. It's perfectly possible to be organized without a boss.
Whether anarchism is feasible on a sizable scale, like say national, is a different question. But technology is making it more feasible on broader scales of late years. Once upon a time it might have been claimed that complex self-organized leaderless projects collaborating across the globe would be an impossibility. Heck, not so long ago you just wouldn't have strung those words together because it was way past the horizon of what people would think about. But now? Take a bow, various large open source software projects from Debian to Apache.

There was a time when technology didn't support national-scale representative democracy; for that you need a certain level of communication and transportation across the country, and probably the printing press.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Segata SanshiroOne thing I'm curious about is whether they will have the fallacy of democracy and capitalism being one and the same, or whether they will allow for more interesting systems like authoritarian capitalism (ie. Singapore) or democratic socialism (Scandinavian model). That would probably be a dealbreaker for me.

Yes. In general, I'm kind of caught--on one hand, this is just the kind of game I'd be really interested in. On the other hand, my beliefs in terms of both political ideology and in terms of how economies work are quite different from the mainstream so the chance of such a game functioning in a way that makes sense to me and doesn't annoy me is small. So in practice, I doubt I'm going to see a game of this sort that I like. Ideal I guess would be a game like this where a lot of the parameters are quite moddable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...one would expect Steam's expansion into Windows PCs and Linux PCs to happen at the same rate, and so if the Windows Steam population doubled, so would the Linux population.

This expectation is what I think is unfounded. There's just no basis for it. It's entirely possible that the vastly larger Windows population is currently taking up Steam more rapidly than Linux users. Or maybe the disproportionate change only happened during the Winter Sale.

I'm not saying it's impossible for the Windows population to be taking up Steam more rapidly than Linux users (although the size of their population is completely irrelevant and a red herring).
But there is a simple, direct basis for the expectation of those rates of growth being similar: A desktop is a desktop and the population of users is the population of users. They are all part of the same market, they see the same ads or whatever--why should they be behaving differently?
Even if there is some systematic difference between the gaming tendencies of Linux users and Windows users, why should that difference itself be changing? Imagine Linux desktop users have a lower tendency to game, such that half as many Linux users per 10,000 desktops play games. Then, if Linux had 2% of the desktop market, it would not be unreasonable for Linux to be at 1% on Steam. But then, if Linux increased to 3% of the desktop market, one would expect Linux to rise to 1.5% on Steam.
Instead, we have apparently a long-term trend of in the neighbourhood of from 2% to 3% on the desktop (ish, vaguely--whatever the specifics, like maybe 1 and a half times as much as a couple years ago) and a simultaneous long-term trend of from 1% on the Steam survey some time back, down to about 0.8% now. Monthly shifts have generally been insignificant, but the long term trend has been downwards. For these two things to both be true, Linux users would have to be gaming at lower and lower rates compared to Windows users over this time period, or at least adopting Steam at lower and lower rates. Or all of Steam's growth would have to be coming from some particular population which includes a much lower percentage of Linux users.

But we're talking about a big shift here if we accept Steam's figures, of Linux users gaming on Steam a lot less, like half as much per capita, from Linux desktops being used for gaming maybe half as much as Windows ones (1% Steam/2% desktop), to Linux desktops being used for gaming about 1/4 as much as Windows ones (0.8% Steam/3.?% desktop), over the course of a couple of years. Would you not expect such a trend to be visible in some way? Is it not reasonable to expect some explanation for the shift to exist, especially at a time when all our information suggests Linux becoming far more viable for gaming, rather than less?

Or alternatively, one could conclude the Steam figures are bogus in some way. I've reserved judgement for a long time, but I am gradually coming to the conclusion that that is the simpler and less unlikely explanation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hardpenguin

Quoting: liamdaweIntel HD/Iris graphics aren't exactly the best for gaming, but it's good to know that people stuck with the integrated graphics at least get the chance to try more out.

This man would disagree: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQkd05iAYed2-LOmhjzDG6g [External Link]

And don't say that! I am going to buy a laptop with Intel graphics and play a lot of DOTA2 on it!

Dota2?! I have a laptop with Intel graphics and I play games on it fine . . . specifically, turn-based games, where frame rate doesn't matter a whole ton. But high end real-time games, particularly ones pitting you against other people and their machines, seem to be exactly the most masochistic choice for Intel gaming.
Or was that a joke that just swished over my head?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOne might say we shouldn't be sure of such a surge, but there's no reason to have no expectations of one. But stipulating no such surge, why should we expect a decline?

What decline? We're going in circles, but I still don't see why you'd expect every metric to grow linearly and in proportion to each other. There's just no good reason for this expectation.

I am sure, or rather I know Linux gaming is growing. Steam user base is also growing, and fast. These two might grow at different rates and those rates are not likely to be constant. Even in relation to each other.

We are indeed going in circles.
Why would they grow at different rates? Let's start from the simplest case: The PC population stays constant, the percentage of that population running Linux stays constant, but the percentage of that population using Steam grows. If the general role filled by those PCs for Linux and Windows is either the same, or different but in a way that does not itself shift as Steam use grows, one would expect Steam's expansion into Windows PCs and Linux PCs to happen at the same rate, and so if the Windows Steam population doubled, so would the Linux population.

Factors could exist that would make that not be the case. They would have to involve some change in the roles of either Windows PCs, Linux PCs or both during the period of Steam expansion.

Quoting: ShmerlFirst of all, I don't see the survey as even representing Steam picture correctly (why do you need the survey, if Steam has complete data no doubt?). But one factor can potentially be higher number of games that don't have Linux versions still. If we assume gaming market is growing, and only a minority of games have Linux releases, then may be non Linux segment has larger growth?

What? No. That doesn't make sense at all. Linux already had that problem at the beginning of the market growth, so it was baked into Linux's earlier numbers--in fact the problem was worse before. So that should either have zero impact or work in the other direction. Honestly, I'm tearing my hair out here; everyone's giving me explanations for why Linux might have small numbers at a snapshot in time, and telling me they're explanations for change over time. Those things are different!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Purple Library GuyTo sum up: If the overall percentage of Linux desktops is growing, and the viability of Linux for gaming is growing fast, then why would the percentage of Linux gamers be shrinking?

I don't see why we should expect a direct, immediate cause-and-effect relationship. The rapidly improving quality of the gaming experience might be laying a foundation for growth, but we probably shouldn't expect an immediate surge in uptake.

One might say we shouldn't be sure of such a surge, but there's no reason to have no expectations of one. But stipulating no such surge, why should we expect a decline? What factor is it that is so not equal between Windows PCs and Linux PCs in the last year or so that although the percentage of PC desktops using Linux is apparently growing significantly, the percentage of PC desktops gaming on Linux (at least, on Steam) is supposed to be declining?
In all the times this stuff has been discussed here at GamingonLinux, I've seen exactly one factor proposed as an actual explanation: The proposal early in this thread that much of the recent Steam growth has been of Asian use of Steam, and that Asians don't use Linux. I don't actually know whether either of these things is true or, if true, a big enough factor to be an explanation.

But the claim I often see, that the Linux share on Steam is shrinking because Steam use overall is growing, is not an explanation. It presumes that some factor is causing Windows PC use of Steam to grow, that somehow does not cause Linux PC use of Steam to grow. But what factor? With the exception of the Asian idea I mention above which I am not at all sure I buy, nobody has suggested what such a factor could be.
Either there is such a factor, or there is something seriously wrong with the Steam survey. Since we don't know how the Steam survey works and we have lots of anecdotal indications that it is half-assed in various ways, I don't think we can rule out of bounds that second possibility. Alternatively, we need some suggestions about this mystery factor, or perhaps to shore up the Asian hypothesis with some figures. Because really, the idea that Linux Steam use (per number of Linux desktops) is shrinking fast compared to Windows Steam use (per number of Windows desktops) strikes me as very strange and counterintuitive.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Purple Library GuySure, I know Steam has itself been growing--but why would it be growing disproportionately among non-Linux users?

Why is this hard to believe? Linux gaming is growing, but there's no good reason to expect it would grow at exactly the same rate worldwide as PC gaming in general. And of course the survey won't give us exact figures. Trends are the most we can expect.

At exactly the same rate? No, to the contrary, there is reason to expect it would grow faster than PC gaming in general. Going back to the first point, it seems that as a proportion of total personal computer use (for browsing the web), Linux use is growing, according to a variety of stat-gathering outfits--the rate of growth reported varies, but the existence of growth seems to be widely agreed on. So the question is, would we expect the proportion of Linux users who game (on Steam) to grow faster than the proportion of Windows users who game, at the same rate, or slower? Well, I'm unaware of anything about Windows that has drastically improved the gaming experience in recent months; anything that might push console gamers or non-gamers to desktop computer gaming and Steam that I can imagine should work on both Windows users and Linux users. Anything that might push purchasers of games on CD to Steam should also work both on Windows and Linux users. Overall, I can't think of any source of overall Steam growth that should systematically exclude Linux desktops as opposed to Windows or Mac ones. And, again, the proportion of total desktops on Linux seems to be growing.

But I think we're all agreed that gaming on Linux has of late years and months been rapidly getting better; as a general desktop, Linux was already pretty mature a couple of years ago when it debuted on Steam, but as a viable gaming platform it has gotten way better in that time. Furthermore, distributions have now had a couple of years to get used to the idea that Steam is a thing, so they are much more likely to have it pre-installed or readily installable in whatever software repository they use than at the beginning. As Linux users update, Steam should have become steadily more accessible to them. So there are good reasons for a Linux desktop user to be much more likely to game, on Steam, using that Linux desktop now than a couple of years ago (and for dual-booters to spend more of their gaming time in Linux, less in Windows).

To sum up: If the overall percentage of Linux desktops is growing, and the viability of Linux for gaming is growing fast, then why would the percentage of Linux gamers be shrinking?

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd Steam has definitely remained the natural place to go for Linux gamers.

Not necessarily. Linux gamers tend to be averse to DRM and can avoid Steam altogether. The survey simply doesn't represent such users at all.

I oversimplified, admittedly. My post was getting long. Yes, there are plenty of people who avoid DRM by using GOG and so forth. And my hat is off to them; I respect that. But they do seem to be in the minority, first of all. And more importantly, there does not seem to have been a sudden renaissance in purist principle among Linux users in the last year or so, so I would expect the principled Steam avoiders to stay in roughly the same proportion among Linux gamers over time. If anything I might expect new Linux adopters (of which there do seem to be a fair number) to be less likely to hold these principles strongly, and so the proportion to be, unfortunately, falling. So, GOG users might explain an oddly low Linux percentage on Steam in the first place, but not a decline over time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm really losing faith in the Steam survey. Other Linux use stats seem to fairly consistently show Linux use growing. Meanwhile, viability of Linux for gaming in the first place has been clearly and steadily increasing since Steam first became available on Linux, so I would expect more Linux users to be doing their gaming on Linux (as opposed to dual-booting or relying on consoles or just living without many games). So both the percentage of Linux users in general and natural expectations of what proportion of that would be used for gaming are rising. And Steam has definitely remained the natural place to go for Linux gamers. So why would the percentage of Linux users on Steam be dropping? (Yes, this month's drop is insignificant, but there's been a longer term trend for months with few exceptions at exactly the same time other sites seem to be showing a Linux rise) Makes no sense.

Sure, I know Steam has itself been growing--but why would it be growing disproportionately among non-Linux users? If Linux gaming is in decline I'd want to face that reality, the better to do something about it, but I can't make it compute. Increasingly I'm coming to the conclusion that there's simply something seriously skewed about the Steam survey results. And that's a problem, because if developers think there's nobody on Linux they might stop developing games for Linux even if the Linux users (and sales) are actually there. It's getting to the point where I feel like this particular thing Valve does is doing us a significant disservice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: numasanQuestion to you who are on the fence or don't care about VR. Have you tried it? I'm not talking about using a phone, but true VR with positional tracking. It really is a transformative experience, that reminds me of the early days of accelerated 3D graphics (GL-Quake) in difference.

I'm in Tuubi's camp, and I never cared about accelerated 3D graphics either. MOO 2 is still way better than most of the modern 4X SF games even though its graphics are . . . NOT accelerated 3D, to say the least. Heck, in some ways MOO 1 is more interesting than a lot of modern 4X; it did things in ways that have been forgotten, such as it let you split your research up between topics, abstracted industrial production on colonies rather than having stacks of fiddly "buildings" with different mostly-pointless tradeoffs, and so on. I care little that its graphics suck pustulent buttock.

I'm pleased in an abstract way that VR technology is being developed; I'm sure it will turn out to be useful in a number of ways (scientific research, medical diagnosis--imagine walking around in someone's MRI scan looking for anomalies--and so on) but I'm really not feeling like caring much about it for gaming.

. . . Actually, there is one type of game I might like to see in VR. VR would allow combat games where you're directly "fighting" with life-sized virtual opponents--you parry by parrying, strike by striking, dodge by dodgring, basically spar almost realistically. That would be cool, and good exercise too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments