Quoting: ElectricPrism1XX% scaling although technically feasible on a technical level makes no sense at all. Assuming you want a PPI density of 1080p @ 20" because 4k is 200% inches or 400% pixels you will want to double that 20" size and get a 40" size 4k display if you intend to not use scaling. And quite frankly I am not sure 27" - 36" 4k makes much sense unless you want terrible eye strain.

If you are not using the screen for programming at 100% size, the only other common reason why 4k is a thing is because screen makers wanted to compete with Apple Retina and have super crisp fonts. And again the 1XX% scaling vs X00% issue comes up where you make the image look like shit by mathmatically guessing clarity which defeats the point of use case #2.

You are making no sense at all. There are lots of resolution/monitor size combinations where 100% is way too small and 200% is way too big.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheBardThere's no excuses, just plain facts. I think all the people that commented here liked GOG but it hard to support a store when objectively they don't care that much about you.

Well, we look at all the nice things Windows and even Mac people have and we're pissed off we don't get the same treatment. GOG's point of view is be grateful we're even doing this much for you, with you being so few and, as shown by what happened with W2, you being all c**ts (self-censorship here) anyway.

Valve have all the money in the world for the moment and someone there decided Linux needed supporting for whatever reason and put money into it. GOG's decision was probably externally-motivated. They didn't have anything to do with Linux (and probably still don't) themselves, but heard all the buzz generated by Valve and got all the requests and said, yeah, ok, this is a thing we need to do apparently, so let's try doing something and see what comes out of it. As far as I can tell, nothing has. We hate on them because they haven't given us what they've given others, they still don't care about us because we haven't brought in the money.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Sir_DiealotLike most Windows users won't ever use anything else most Steam users won't use anything else either.

That's not my experience at all. From what I've seen, people (by which I mean those who are not actively following the gaming market) will do anything and everything to get the game they want to play running. I remember going over to some friends' house who just bought Ubisoft's Tintin game for their kid. Apart from the fact they needed to get a new gfx card for it (to which their reaction was, ok, let's go out and get a new one), there was the whole Uplay client and the always online thing which I thought was pretty atrocious, but they didn't even give any of it a second thought, as long as their kid could play the game.

If people were unwilling to use anything other than Steam, Fortnite wouldn't be the most popular game right now. I see people complaining about the Epic client on gaming forums, but there's vastly more people who just want to play it and they don't care what they need to do for that to happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

GOG’s installers are much better than what Humble puts out, where it’s just a zip file with even no icon. That said, it’s still completely incomprehensible for someone coming from Windows that they then need to enable the 32-bit architecture and install a bunch of libs in the terminal before the game they just installed can work.

When I have a game on Steam, I miss having an installer I can just copy places and install on various computers without installing a client. When I have a game on GOG I miss automatic updates and just being able to click to install something without looking for the installer or going to the website to download it. Having the Galaxy client on Linux would give me the best of both worlds and make GOG my preferred platform, but alas.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

GOG operates in a different environment to Valve. Linux is completely negligible in their native Poland, they are almost certainly disinterested in Linux themselves and the Witcher 2 debacle was more than enough to turn them away from Linux users almost completely (I think it’s very probable the Galaxy no show on Linux is also due to that) They’re also a publicly-traded company and anything they do that doesn’t bring them profits is a huge liability to their share price. Their shareholders are Polish, so they don’t care about the Linux market at all and any actions to support us will be viewed as nonsensical.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, I must have missed the news it was on Linux. Bought immediately. :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I am glad I can pitch in every month. Thank you for what you've been doing and here's to many a prosperous year for GoL and Linux gaming! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is actually an interesting situation in another way as well: in removing the native version and asking Valve to whitelist the game for Proton, they are asking them to take over the support for the game as well. I wonder what Valve thinks about that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I believe we don't need all people who use Linux to subscribe to the philosophy behind it. We do, however, need the numbers so various entities that create hardware and software find it worthwhile for their business to support Linux properly. I believe both proprietary and open-source software have their place and it would not be good if either of them disappeared.

I'd say a Linux market share of about 20% would do the computer landscape a world of good.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I agree with Purple Library Guy 100%. I also thought of the "if you build it they will come" phrase as I was reading Cheeseness's article and I think he is wrong there. They will not come because they're already somewhere else and they _see_ no reason to move.

I think Linux is already good enough and has been for years now. It has not been enough. The general population does not care about Linux's advantages and they just want to use what they know and what will run the software they know (how many times have I heard, yeah, ok, but does it run <insert arbitrary piece of Windows-only software here>, oh, it doesn't, but I need it) and to some extent what came installed on their computer - even if they themselves say "Windows 8 is awful I hate it".

The situation can only be solved by marketing and easy access to hardware with Linux pre-installed. The perception of Linux has to change. People have to learn they can do all they need to do with it. This is exactly the thing Apple had been doing for years - telling people they sell fully-functional computers which have all the software people will ever need. I remember when Macs were in the perceptual position Linux is in now some 15 years ago - seen as expensive, useless toys for a very specific few. Linux isn't seen as expensive ofc, but the rest stands. Apple put millions into marketing and more millions into software.

Someone needs to do that for Linux if it's to succeed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments