Quoting: TangoBakera combination I've come to refer to as "Baby's First Chainsaw".

LOL

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirYou are comparing ARM hardware with x86... There is absolutely no hardware interrelations between them. Same for Stadia, there are no interrelations with the desktop; you can't run stadia on any hardware. Steam, on the other hand... SteamOS is Steam Linux both on x86 platform. Proton works on both too... Same underlying tech... The link cannot be clearer.

except that Stadia IS x86

Quoting: LinuxwarperDeck on other hand:
- Emulators
- Lots stores
- Lots streaming options

you forgot the mods

Quoting: MohandevirEdit2: Specialized? Please define... To me, it's still Arch Linux, with the same drivers and KDE desktop. Certainly it will have a minimal set of software pre-installed... I would have used the term "barebone". Which might be less scary for newcomers.

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: i.redd.it

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Looks like a standard KDE desktop to me...

specialized because its a frozen OS, all the updates will be delivered as... i dont remember the term, but read only.
you cant install .debs, rpms or whatever arch use without unlocking the developer mode first.

and i'm not sure about gog games (last time i checked the installer was an .sh file)

------------
as for linux increassing the linux marketshare on desktop...
well people played on consoles in the past and they didnt used linux on desktop, despite not needing windows for gaming, so i dont know...
there is a few big differences now, flash is "dead" and flash had an horrible performance on linux, flash was "replaced" with html5 wich works well.
(i said between air quotes because nothing was ported to html5 and the flash emulators arent perfect)

there are more programs for the mainstream public (eg: video editors etc), and people will be buying an device that just happens to be an linux device, they might as well discover/explore the desktop mode, and feel in love with the customization options.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIt's not GNU/Linux desktop, and they aren't going to magically make native games available.

as they say, when the service is free, you are the product.
why do you think companies in linux break backward compatibility all the time?
to force companies to pay for techinical support.
i hate to say that, but i think canonical and others are selling US.
want to reach those millions of ubuntu users? want to make sure that your app wont break in our next update? then pay us, because, you know, it would be a shame if anything break, right?

sorry if it sounds like conspiration theory, it is.

i always thought that free software was made by people for people, and companies had an symbiotic relationship with us.

but honestly? its harder and harder to believe that narrative, mint broke compatibility with snapes claiming that they were an proprietary form of distribution or that canonical was the only repo or something, but then, why they support steam? if we keep fighting each other for who gonna be the standard, then an proprietary stard will emerge and dominate the market.

we may demonize an proprietary codecs because they arent open source or compatible with open source, they are evil , etc.
we may demonize drm and anti cheat.
we may demonize everything for the sake of freedom, but at the end of the day, what we end up with?
an phone that cant do phonecalls nor run any modern app?
we need an product, we need some form of pragmatism, the key here is not to become an windows 2, nor an linux as is, microsoft may seem closed, but they are quite open compared to an console, windows is an midle term between total lock down like consoles and totally "freedom" like linux, we are giving "more freedom" but freedom to do what? we didnt had any game engine up until a few years ago, so we didnt gave our users "the freedom to make the games they wanted" just the freedom to customize their workflow, with bad tools to make games.

speaking of pragmatism:
amazon may have sounded like an bad option, but at least it would make some profits for canonical, wich would make linux grow, wich would make more apps and games run on it, giving another option of operating system for the masses.
we didnt accepted the money and guess who did? microsoft!
now they make even more profits, and their users have to suffer even more using their operating system, without having any option to run for, since linux dont run most of their softwares and games, ie, its not an option for then.

Quoting: GuestWith Stadia though there was a community expecting more to come of it, and there wasn't. I think it's the same - the game is still a Windows title, Capcom isn't supporting GNU/Linux

this is something closer to Just Another Console(tm).

speaking of consoles, i dont doubt that sony has something akin to proton on their console.
i was reading about the apis that developers use to make games...

looks like the technology that dominated the shaders was based on an solution from microsoft (eg : pixel shader or something)
while the technology for something else was based on a sony api.

we dont have just directX, openGL and Vulkan, consoles have their own things and sometimes games are ported to pc from some of those apis.

i dont think those big games are 100% native on any platform aside from the last years of the life of such platform.
part of the code runing on pc may be an translation layer from some playstation api, part of the code running on playstation is based on direct, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIt's amazing how when a company senses a marketing opportunity like this suddenly the impossible can happen.

Releasing on GNU/Linux can't be done!
Oh, Stadia appears? Sure, not a problem.
Steam Deck appears? Sure, not a problem (especially when someone else does the work).

the reason why they relased for stadia was: they were paid in advance, so they didnt had to take any risk.
take RE 7,8 for example, there was an rumor/leak that google paid then 10 millions to port both games to stadia.
if the cost of the port is 8 millions, capcom just made 2 millions in profit without a single sale!
if they used the same engine to make both games, than the cost of porting is shared across then (eg: they just need to port their engine and the game come as result)
i'm not sure on how much it cost to port anything else, but we can be sure that almost no company will do that for free.

indies do, because they have projects with an small cost of production and small audience, so any new audience is welcome, porting their games is cheaper , linux has fewer users but the total number of user still is greater than the audience of most of those games and the lack of competition is an big incentive (or at least it was during the era of the 5 first humble bundles)

big companies on the other hand, either will lose money in the port, lose in the support (since linux is super fragmented and updates often break thirdy party things) and even if they made a profit, their stake holders will not be happy on how they are using the money.

you can be sure that if investing in capcom returns 2 dollars for each dollar that you invest, and investing in rockstar returns 10 dollars for each dollar spent, most investors will invest in rockstar instead, considering that, why do you think its a good idea to invest on linux?

its not, they are supporting steam deck because there is a demand for that and valve is taking almost all the risk, stadia seemed promissing and failed to deliver the audience they expected but still, they are paid to port.
oh yeah, i forgot to mention the risks of damaging their brand supporting an platform that may create aditional bugs for then, and who will get the blame? linux? or their game? go figure, we lose anyway.
not to mention what happens to the companies who did supported us.

when mass effect2 was originally ported to ps3, they used translation layers since it was cheaper to port using then, it caused a few performance issues but the profit were so big that the port paid itself and they invested aditional money to fix the issues, they took the parts who strugle to run at an good framerate, and converted the code to native and more optimized code.

when cdpr ported witcher 2 to linux? they deply regreted, we complained a lot about not being 100% an native port, the sales were not enough to justify porting the witcher 3 wich was planned, and the worst part: the desktop didnt grow (wich was expected) and the steam machines didnt sold well (wich they were couting on to justify the costs of porting)
this problem is not exclusive to linux, ask any company why they droped the support for nintendo platforms.

now, let me ask you something:
would you invest in a company that is betting on linux desktop or an console like steam machines? i know i wouldnt, because i would lose money for sure.
steam machines didnt had exclusives (back in the days that exclusives were a thing), nor any reason to exist aside from promoting linux for people that for some reason dont care in spending more money to get less games.

now... would you invest in a platform if someone else took all the risks? and that the public seems interested in this machine because it allow then to game on the go?
or an platform that some one gave you some guaranteed money to support?
for me, of course i would!

we think in linux as an good deal for companies,because we want to deffend or own interests (being able to play on our favorite platform) but we "forget" that they are defending their own interests too...

another thing to consider:
what if you port the game for linux for free, then some company like valve offer you 10 millions to port the game? oh wait, you would never receive this proposal, because its already ported!
why would an compay port an game to stadia for free, to try to help google expand the market and make money in the process, if they are most likely to lose money instead and lose the opportunity of pressuring google to pay for their valuable franchises...
especially considering that google will make money by selling those same games!
and if google isnt willing to invest, well, if they dont want to invest in their own platform, why would you? if they arent willing to pay you, that just show how insecure they are that their platform will be an sucess, so why should YOU take the risk?

and speaking of it, if we are so sure that linux is so promissing, maybe we should become stake holders of companies who bet on its sucess...

and... one sugestion for an company that is considering an port:
do an crowd funding campaing, let us take all the risks, if there is enough demmand to cover the cost of porting+profits why not?
i think they dont do because begging for money dont sound good.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i think this situation is... ironic to say the least...
canonical bet that linux could become mainstream, spend a lot of money on it, then they failed.
they even tried to do an partnership with valve and got ambitious with their own display server, an phone, tablet, conversible concept...
and ultimately failed, but at least they were the entry point to many in the world of linux and as result, many people build know how on ubuntu wich helped then grow in the server space (cheap laborhood)

the desktop seemed ... abandoned, a few bug fixes here and there but no major new features.

then valve strike again, an big youtuber that reache the masses start talking about linux , and they're like:
hey we're listening to yourfeedback!
i'm not saying they werent before, but they were silent at best...
its almost like they realize that things may finally get into motion now, and they may miss the boat...
anyway, i'm not mad at then, its just that... it may be to later, steamOS is arch based and pop seems to be get the public they were negleting, so lets see what happens =p

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i just remembered that i saw somewhere (one youtube channel stadia related) that amazon luna only had 1 game that was not avaliable for stadia/linux, so stadia using linux dont explain why it was not sucessfull compared to others.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: elmapulfor example, in my country, if i count air tv and cable tv, we had 100 animes broacasted in total across 3~5 decades, there are 10.000 animes on my anime list alone (not to mention its an incomplete list, it dont have the indie non official touhou animes for instance), crunchroll dont have everything, but at least it has 700 animes any given month.

This is a really good point, tbh, and re-enforces why monopolies are bad - if they control what content you watch, you're severely restricted as a focused client of that service. But while dealing with multiple streaming services feels bad, they're still actually really cheap compared to what we used to pay for scheduled television, and they allow a huge degree of control over what you watch.

My primary gripe is really just finding content sometimes. And a minor gripe about how different services look different. And handle end-of-show credits. And how quickly they stream the next episode before I can find the remote control to turn off auto-stream. So frustrating.

Okay, so a few gripes. Still better than a monopoly though.

In Germany there was Sky for soccer/football. Bundesliga and Champions League... all you needed in one small package if you wanted to watch every game.

Then they had to split up the rights, because it was claimed that competition is good for the customer. Then the rights went to Sky for the Saturday games, but the Friday games were on Eurosport. And some games were exclusive to DAZN/Amazon or whatever. Total clusterfuck and more expensive than before.

the law should have specified an non exclusivity deals.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineMy primary gripe is really just finding content sometimes. And a minor gripe about how different services look different. And handle end-of-show credits. And how quickly they stream the next episode before I can find the remote control to turn off auto-stream. So frustrating.

Okay, so a few gripes. Still better than a monopoly though.

i understand but that is why we have things like google tv being developed, the goal is to search for the content itself in an unified interface instead of relying on the interface of the streaming service.
that way you can list all the content and where its avaliable then auto launch the correct app for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Whitewolfe80Don't know what you are all on about onlive is where it's at..... Oh wait it died just like all the gaming streaming sites will or it fragment just like streaming TV Netflix used to have everything now there are exclusives and you need multiple subscriptions to see everything

Yeah. On one hand, monopolies are definitely bad. On the other hand, I went from a £6.99 Netflix sub to:

Netflix family: £9.99
NowTV + Sports package: around £25 in total, per month
Disney: £7.99
Prime: £7.99

And of course, my cabled TV connection, which includes my 300mb internet and a landline I never use: £70

Like, yeah, monopolies are really, really bad (just look at Microsoft), but how much would Netflix have had to put up their prices, per month, before people complained? Because even taking out NowTV, if they'd DOUBLED their prices, it would still be cheaper for the consumer than dealing with Netflix+Disney+Prime.

That said, before streaming services existed, I paid Virgin for their "Everything" package and it was just over £100 a month, which included Sky Sport and Sky Movies, and was therefore much cheaper than all this multiple-streaming-service juggling!

And don't even get me started on my £16.99/month spotify family plan.

there is no such a thing as pay cheap get everything.
for example, in my country, if i count air tv and cable tv, we had 100 animes broacasted in total across 3~5 decades, there are 10.000 animes on my anime list alone (not to mention its an incomplete list, it dont have the indie non official touhou animes for instance), crunchroll dont have everything, but at least it has 700 animes any given month.
if you think USA is the only country who make movies, series and cartoons, then sure, cable tv had everything, but last time i checked shows like round6 were not made by usa.
(not to mention things like censorship in animes that aired on cable, those still exist on streaming services but it isnt as bad as it was in the past thanks to piracy that helped keeps thing in check or at least inform the public)

one thing that people forgot is that the more money we put into the entertainment industry, the more shows they are capable of doing with an better techinical quality.
that is, as long as we dont help creating monopolies either in distribution or production.
an netflix monopoly would never be good, even if they promissed it would be cheaper and keep their promisses, they would be the ones deciding what shows get produced or not, what shows get an second seasson or not.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i'm surprised that no one said that but...
i think what killed stadia was youtube, or better saying, youtubers and the gaming media in general.

they straight up LIED about it, no matter how good the service is, if no one knows about it and most people are miss informed on purpose about it.

if you dont watch the google presentation/ads on stadia, you just read the sum ups of it elsewhere, you will be lead to believe that you have to pay for the games AND subscribe to the service to be able to play anything, and if they discontinue the service you lose not only the games but any progress you made on then, and the worst part: you will believe that the input lag make the games unplayable.

stadia had the best input lag of all streaming options, in some cases even better than local gaming with xbox one x, but no one knew about it.

it helps nothing that google promissed a lot of features but failed to comunicate they wouldnt be avaliable day 1.

stadia was attacked by all directions.

people who were afraid of cloud gaming because any cloud exclusive may disappear if the service is shutdown, we cant preserve old games nor apply decensor patches nor pirate anything, and if they discontinue the service we might loss the games we purchased, people said screw that! and didnt want to support it, at least not on stadia, but those same people ignored that microsoft is willing to make cloud exclusive games and they are fine on cloud as long as its only used for testing or streaming games that you already "Own".

xbox fanboys and microsoft fanboys were attacking stadia, playstation fanboys, nintendo fanboys, even dreamcast fanboys, either because they were afraid of losing local gaming, or didnt wanted an new competition for their platform, or just wanted to do clickbait videos and trash talking stadia was the next big thing, the next meme to make to get views.

it helps nothing that google didnt reacted, and he could.
the first year stadia received 120 games as promissed, but only 100 were promissed for the second year, he should have improved the rate of new games instead.

google never bothered to upgrade the servers when the new generation came.

google didnt clear what will happen if they discontinue the servers (other than you being able to download your save files)

and google took to long to implement things like click to play, hell, it didnt take too much effort to market stadia, just show some ads of an game, and make some of the people who see those ads on youtube realzie they are INTERACTIVE ads (much like a lot of simple games make interactive ads, but for triple A games)
if people are afraid of input lag, show to then that they can play it, then when they see for thenselves that its an acceptable experience, you show an logo saying : powered by stadia.
give people a free trial or even better, give then an game for free.
give then the assurance that they will be able to download the game on steam or something like that if google discontinue the service, but imply an minimum number of years were you can be sure it wont happen.
google can even reduce the reach of channels who spread fake news, but i dont think it would be an good idea especially if its leaked that they are doing it, people will acuse then of doing the opposite.

i think google never expected the reception to be that bad, the initial reach to be that bad, and then stake holders pressured then to kill the service, wich ironically is the reason why they are in this situation to begin with, they killed too many services.
hell, i was one of the few people who cared about googleplus, and how the hell they cant manage the security of an text based service, they cant pay for a few people to send text to host on their servers and show to other people who want to read then, but they can stream triple A games?
sure earning 30% of an 60 dollars sale make then much more money than trying to run ads on a failing social network and earning fractions of cents per user, but something isnt adding up imho.

View this comment - View article - View full comments