Quoting: MohandevirIn the meantime, a quick check showed me that Ubisoft got 14 pages of upvotes in 3 days... Don't know if that mean much, though, for such a big company...

just compare to other things in their forum to see if its a big deal or not

View this comment - View article - View full comments

supporting steam deck is not so simple.

sure they can fill in an e-mail and send, but then what happens if the anti cheat for linux isnt that good and the game get flooded with cheaters as result?
or if it cause aditional bugs that they have to fix?

if they arent sure about the demand, there is no point in supporting it, its a harsh reality.

and no, asking people to ask then in a forum is not to meassure the exact demmand for it, most of people dont interact with the foruns of every game they play.

its just to get an sample base.

as for stadia, not only google paid then for stadia, but stadia by nature is almost cheat proof.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

gamepad support to control the GUI?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirNo. Don't try speaking on my behalf, you are totally wrong... Please read again my sentence in my first post. .

sorry i think i mixed your comment with some one else then, so many comments that i got confused... maybe....

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIn theory, anyhow. In practice they might try, but they're too cheap to back their play hard enough to win. :grin:

But yeah, they could still imagine doing it and treat people as competitors even though in the real world they will never seriously compete with them . . .

i think their main issue is geting stake holders onboard.
i mean, they may want to continue trying something, but the stake holders who truly own the money pull the plug to early without thinking about long term consequences and they are forced to axe their projects.

stadia was not just an way for then to enter the gaming market, but to make chromeOS relevant in the operating system market too, who would purchase an expensive gaming rig running windows, when they could just pick the cheapest chromeOS run stadia on it and do the same thing?

if microsoft decided that for any reason xcloud would not support chromeOS, or if amazon or other player did that, chromeOS gamers would be screwed, google wanted to secure both sides but their stake holders didnt wanted to lose money for years until google figure out how to turn stadia into a profitable business.

it helps nothing that any prediction that google made about the initial reception of stadia was... wrong, and they failed to deliver many features for so much time that people dont know they exist even now that they are avaliable.

now, they show one prediction for stake holders and the reality is nothing like it, then they try to predict again after making some moves to increase it popularity and fail to predict again and again the result, who gonna trust then?

on the other hand, if they sucessfully raise stadia marketshare when their founders are the only ones left believing in it... they take all the profit...
i'm not saying that they are hidding an trump card to use like this, its just that... if they did one move right, the fate of the platform may quickly change from "no one want to fund it" to "everyone want"

now... can they change the perception that gamers have about stadia? i dont think so, i was willing to belive and wanted to see it happens (not because i like cloud or stadia but because i was desperate to see linux grow or at least became more viable for gaming) but now i dont believe they can change it anymore (anything they do may be too litle too later and it dont seems they are trying) nor i do care anymore.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyGoogle in general seem to be very good at making use of Linux in ways that you would think would be good for Linux more generally, but managing to avoid letting that happen. I don't know if they have some reason to want to do that or if it's just by accident, but so far they've been pretty consistent about it.

speaking of it i have 2 things to comment.

1)valve and google are in different positions, valve business model was treated by microsoft, so they invested in linux in order to survive, for then it makes no difference if you gonna play on windows, mac or linux as long as you purchase games on steam and the games that you purchase dont stop working on OS updates.

microsoft could try to use tatics like "stuff that you purchase on windows store will work forever, stuff that you purchased elsewhere may break on windows update"
or no guarantee for either, but at least the games you purchase on their store are cross buying meaning that you still can play on xbox...
or things like that, they can try to induce people to use their store, so valve invested in linux in order to secure their independence, and they need linux to be an strong OS to give users an alternative for windows, no matter who make the operating system, if it gonna be thenselves or others, if one of the other linux vendors break stuff, then the users can simply migrate to another distro unlike what happens on windows.

that is why valve is creating an symbiotic relationship with us.

google on the other hand is kinda "too big to fail", but they did bet in independence in the past, they did an partnership with mozilla for the same reasons, they didnt wanted microsoft to control the browser market that would affect then back in the days their only product was google search, now that they have chrome , android youtube etc they arent so dependent on mozilla to help then survice, especially considering that the days of full proprietary browsers and internet explorer dominance in general are gone.

and why google dont make decisions that benefit both their products (android, chromeOS, Stadia) and linux in general? well

2)did you guys remember that Nintendo strugled to get support from thirdy parties some times?
for example in the n64 era, gamecube era, WiiU era they didnt had support from thridy parties!
they always did fine on protables, but sony was the one struggling...

now think about this for a moment: what is stoping other companies from relasing an machine running linux?
if nintendo relased their own "nintendo deck" or something, they would skip the strugle of getting thirdy party support thanks to things like proton, while they (maybe?) still could have an proprietary store front as the only way to acess games in their hardware.
the same goes for sony.

i dont know if they can do that without voiding gpl, but i think they can, and if they can, what valve is doing, may not help only thenselves but their competitors too! but there isnt any guarantee that their competitors will return the favor, nintendo wont allow steam on their console nor port nintendo games to generic steamOS/linux , sony and nintendo still can create apis that better integrate with their own hardware and try to convince developers who want squeeze maximum performance on their hardwares to use then instead of something like directx over proton or vulkan (im not talking about complete ports, but porting the code that is nescessary to port in order to reach an good framerate)

i dont think google will do anything that help their competitors too much , unlike valve who depend on our help to survive and grow this market, google is big enough to try to enter the gaming market with their own money, without much help from volunteers in an "winner takes it all" model.

speaking of nintendo, sony and maybe even others relasing linux consoles, it wont be their first time!
nes mini and snes mini, playstation classic, sega game gear micro, some sega arcades, the new atari vcs, intelvision amiico and a lot of micro consoles (consoles from smaller companies are based on linux.
its Strange to see that valve was kinda right, linux is the future...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirExcept you can't run Stadia or Stadia games locally, on any hardware. The hardware platform is not relevant, in this particular case. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

no you are not clear at all.
you tried to justify that android didnt helped the linux desktop because android is (mostly) arm devices...
but then you quoted stadia as if it was in the same category as android, and its not...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubiIt definitely is a conspiracy theory with very little technical understanding to back it up.

Probably, but i still cant understand why the web has an great backward compatibility (for good or for bad, regardless of consequences) and we break things so often in linux.

it helps nothing that i tried to develop myself and canonical ditched the apis they were creating (it was PWA before PWA was a thing and with more integration, i can understand why they ditched it, but it still was frustrating.

honestly as both an end user and developer, things breaking on updates pissed me of a lot, it improved a lot since i stop using non LTS ( for years no one told me that i should stay on LTS) and started keeping note on the apps that i install to better troubleshoot any problem (eg: if i install A,B,C it cause problem but if i stop at B it dont)
i would quote a few times things broke but i cant remember now, brian lunduke would give better examples than i can (im awake since yesterday)

its just frustrating to think that, we had some native games in the past, that no longer works, and we have to install the windows version of then.
if we didnt had windows? we were screwed.

now... i didnt wanted to say "companies definitely did this on purpose" because i know it sounds ridiculous
but if there is an cost of keeping backward compatibility, and an economic incentive in breaking, what is the most logical thing to do?

let quote some examples....

openSSL was not secure, big companies sundely realized that one critical piece of their infra structure (and used by many smaller companies too) was not properly funded...
then an fork was created, because of course it was, why fund the original project if you can fund an fork of it instead?

PoP!OS is creating their own desktop enviroment, they said gnome developers code like monkey or something akin to that...
so, why not fund gnome foundation and ask then to hire better developers?
well, because they can just create their own solution instead, paying developers at cost of production instead of cost of production+profit for the managers, and if anyone use their solution, they might be the ones geting paid for customization/improvments instead of paying someone else.
sigh.
i think Pop is going to do the same mistakes that canonical did, meanwhile there are so many things they could make beyond an Desktop Enviroment...
if they want to be an distro for content creators, why not create something like substance painter before substance painter was a thing?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

sorry for my last posts i was a bit... in a bad mood lets say.

Quoting: tuubiMost of the complaints I saw about the Witcher 2 port were because it was released before it was anywhere near ready

ok, fair enough, it was so long ago that i forgot what was the main issue, or never knew, the polemic surrounding Virtual programing was so big that the true problem was burried, at least in my "news feed".

Quoting: tuubiSome companies understand the long-term benefits and work with Linux and the community, but most take what they can and give nothing or very little back. It's naïve to expect anything else, when most business decisions are made by people who have very little interest or expertise in the technology or anything beyond short term profit.

so canonical fit in what definition? i think they shoot thenselves in the foot by trying to make their own display server, desktop enviroment etc all at the same time.
then snaps...

Quoting: tuubiThey didn't break anything. You can just install snapd and go nuts, but Mint decided that flatpak was the more universal solution and better for their users, and went with that as the default instead. I don't think any distribution officially supports both out of the box.

if all distributions pick and chose what universal packages they will support, then those packages arent universal at all, we solve nothing by add'ing then, that is the issue.

Quoting: tuubiLots of demons?

[redacted]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: ThePierrasseUnity is still the best DE ever though. Change my mind.

Unity had a lot of nice ideas but they all lacked polish. The menu was laggy, I had constant crashes, the lenses could be useful but it was faster just to open a file manager, the theme in general was very ugly. What I actually miss is the HUD and the way that maximized windows' header bars would integrate with the top bar and become the menu so you could take better advantage of screen space.

If they did a modern implementation of it I would give it a try though.

As for feedback for gaming, that's going to be hard. I stopped using Ubuntu and its variants a while ago because of instability issues and migrated to Fedora which runs smoothly, It's kind of boring sometimes because things just work. I think if I were to try it again, I'd go with Xubuntu, it's the most stable one in my experience.

i agree with everything except not wanting to have something stable and thinking unity was ugly.
its semi transparent so it match everything behind.
as for stability, you can aways find new ways to break your system on purpose then try to fix

View this comment - View article - View full comments