Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Guestthat kind of resource allocation simply wouldn't have been done for desktop GNU/Linux..

i dont see why not,

No sales.

cant google try with chromeOS?
anyway, i hope stadia is sucessfull

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestbut it is better than freezing the whole software base for 2 years just to make sure lazy devs can write their code and work without them having to modify it in the future.

i think you didnt understand the issue here.

its not about being an lazy developer, but having to chose between add an new feature and rewrite your program to fix issues caused by thirdy party code.

i dont give a fuck what python version my distro is using, if none of the programs that i run are running the lastest version of python, they dont need the new features to do what they do, they should not upgrade.

but i do give a fuck when i try to run an effect on gimp, and it simply dont work, breaking my workflow from:
"now, i need to aply the effect x, then y, they z, to make the photo montage i need to do for my work"
to: now i need to waste 3 hours figuring out why the effect X dont work anymore, 2 hours fixing it, 3 hours fixing the z effect that broke after i fixed the x effect, and... what are the steps i was going to follow to make my work anyway? i cant even remember it anymore!

that is why we need to keep things working for 2 years, imagine rewrite the entire blender every 2 years, do you REALLY want to put that work upon yourselft?
i'm not saying you gonna need rewrite everything, but good luck figuring out what broke (testing everything to make sure nothing broke) and why it broke (when its not even your fault, but the fault of some thirdy partie)

not to mention games, windows has at least 10 years of backward compatibility and 90% of the marketshare.
imagine convincing developers to port every library that an game rely on to linux, then port the game itself, only to break stuff 2 years later, with our current marketshare?
or imagine convincing players to game on linux, increassing our marketshare, only to then they figure out that they cant play anymore any game that launched 2 years ago, because those game developers didnt bother to update it?

no one will spend 200 millions of dolars to make an game, than rewrite it every 2 years to make sure its still working, they dont do that on windows, years later most of the profit was already made and any unexpected maintaince may not pay itself.
if developers had to rewrite the games every few years to make sure its still working, they wouldnt make games as amibitous as they do, they would have to scale down their games budget to deal with maintaince cost, the entire industry would evolve slower.
and why? so we can play on linux? if windows were like this, or linux where the most used on desktop and worked like this, those games would be console exclusives already, we would lost completely the most open platform to play games (pc) just because we want an open operating system to run on that platform.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

we all know that valve dont know how to count to 3.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestthat kind of resource allocation simply wouldn't have been done for desktop GNU/Linux..

i dont see why not, if they limit then selves to an single distro (like: steamOS, ubuntu, chromeOS)
there is anything that i'm missing? like real time comunication/acess to the server?

Quoting: GuestStadia being a single hardware and OS support target sure wouldn't have hurt matters either

sure it helps a lot, but they will expand the server hardware in the future, i just hope that they make an offline version in the future, if that thing helps the linux marketshare to grown...

in any case, i was asking because i have an idea of the numbers of people to develop an triple A game, but no idea on the porting side, i mean, yes, i saw the dying light port video, but it seems like an exception rather than the rule of how ports are done.
2/3 persons to port an game made by 200 (dying light)~1500 (gta 5, witcher3) people, seems abnormal, impossible, i think they put an low budget because linux didnt worth it for then, and valve didnt gave then enough confidence on SteamOS future, nor enough money, feral, or whatever they used (i cant remember) didnt had an big bugdget either.

i think in the case of xbox and playsytation, it is quite simmiliar to stadia, at least for the launch titles, there is a reason why google is hiring ex employees from thirdy parties like ubisoft (wich is their "gold partnership"), those companies already worked in the game production side, as well as in the logistic side, they know how microsoft and sony aproached ubisoft, so they know how google should aproach others.
also, google is hiring ex employees from sony and microsoft for the samre reason, to get know how of how to make business in that area.
how to make partnerships, how to direct an game, coding is just an small fraction of the process, sure its very important, but its not enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

this seems like an good simulation of team cordination to hack or defend an system, its a shame we dont have an good simulation of the <hacking> part, besides trying to hack an real system...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

looks good, and the meta history (the history about the game development, isntead of the story of the game) is interesting

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickAMD's OGL driver under Linux is pretty decent (not quite as good as NVIDIA's but close), but their OGL driver under Windows is still using old trash code. IF AMD ever decides to open-source their windows driver, they can port over the Linux OGL code and get a immediate benefit.

I'm not sure why its hard to open-source drivers under windows, maybe Microsoft says no?

i dont know how to make an driver, but i think they should use some windows api that is deeply integrated with the kernel and other proprietary stuff, so exposing it may make it easier to reverse enginering windows and microsoft wont allow that.

even valve has an NDA for their apis, i'm not sure why.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: LeopardNo , actually Windows at this point has nothing to do with OGL situation on Windows.

Reason why OGL is still a relevant api these days ( for professional use cases like CAD apps etc ) is Nvidia and Nvidia's OGL driver is pretty solid on both platforms.

OGL on D3D won't be featureful like NV driver or even AMD's very slow OGL driver,which i don't even take account of many many OGL driver app profiles goes for somewhat broken but important apps. So i think that is not so beneficial as it might seem. There are vendors who can deliver solid OGL implementations already. If they somehow join into this trend and starts to abandon OGL driver of theirs , this might give D3D12 a critical edge over Vulkan , which fears me most.

https://twitter.com/_Humus_/status/1018846492273119233?s=19 [External Link]

Funny story about how AMD screwed with their OGL driver btw.

AMD poured a lot of effort into ATi's drivers actually, and were probably the minds behind trying to unify the Windows and Linux GL drivers. Those decisions are not taken lightly, or without understanding the risks.

And don't worry, Vulkan dominates (or is trending that way) in the mobile space. Microsoft can't touch that, and it's a big space. Then don't forget that perhaps some of this work might encourage OpenGL on Vulkan, simplifying the GNU/Linux driver space. If nothing else, it might get others thinking about it.

Not that I trust Microsoft with this one tiny bit however. They've done their best to deserve such ire.

the issue is, mobile games suck, so it dont matter to much...
and they still can enter this market with xcloud, or nvidia could enter with geforce now, wich seems like an great deal...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Alm888Well, it might technically be beneficial for Microsoft®, considering Windows' current sore state of built-in OpenGL implementation (I think it is something like "OpenGL 1.1") and could make some vendor-locked-in devices (like "Microsoft Surface") to be somewhat useful. Or to help AMDGPU-powered devices to s**k a little less in OpenGL applications (it would be nice to have a comparison to official AMD OpenGL stack)…

But, honestly, using "DirectX 12" is like betting on a dead horse. I mean, who needs DX12 when we have Vulkan? On the other hand, DX12 is all Microsoft® has, so they are out of options… :S:

anyone who develop for xbox needs DirectX12, and before some one says "ps4/switch runs vulkan" they really do? and its an first class citizen, or they threat it like microsoft threated openGL?
"yes, you can use it to port your multiplatform game to our system, but if you want use the full potential you should use our proprietary api"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestSo it's either this support in order to have OpenGL and OpenCL on these machines, or nothing at all....

i think you didnt understood whats happening here.

if microsoft try to launch an hardware (eg: surface, xbox, etc) that dont have support for openGL, they will not be removing value from openGl, they will be removing value from their own product!

they cant afford to launch an device that didnt support aplications such as world of warcraft, they tried it in the past, and it was an disaster.

so, what they are doing?

creating an runtime that will run openGL applications on top of direct x 12, this will ensure that the performance of openGL applications is worse than DirectX 12 applications, wich will reduce the incentive do develop using openGL.
but since most aplications that use it are old, they should run fine (and fast) in those devices, fast enough to run an old game, but not fast enough to run an modern game developed in openGL (an game with tons of shaders, polygons, 3D models etc)
this will not affect indies, but triple A developers will not have an openGL backend.
(its not like they did anyway, but this type of things just ensure it)

the next step could be to do the samething with vulkan...

so, no, they arent adding value to openGL, big companies (like triple a game developers or game engine developers) wont use it anymore since vulkan and dx12 are better options, small companies usualy dont make their own engines, so this will not add value to openGL.
this may even create some frenkstein aplication hybrid from openGL and DirectX12...

View this comment - View article - View full comments