Quoting: PhlebiacDefinitely not great for those 26 people, but is there any indication of what percentage of their headcount that is? And don't a lot of studios shed a fair number of people after finishing a project, if they don't have other immediate projects lined up?

~80 according to Embracers last Year End Report. So roughly 33%.

Quoting: Luke_NukemYou know what else?

https://kotaku.com/microsoft-buy-nintendo-net-worth-valve-steam-email-1850852461 [External Link]

Fuck Microsoft.

Yeah but it will never happen, neither Nintendo nor Valve will ever sell

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KimyrielleThe number of game devs I talked to who founded studios with the primary goal to eventually get bought out by a bigger fish is fairly mind-numbing. They want to publish one good game, get noticed, get bought, and walk away with a fat wad of cash. So, yeah, they really want to do this.

It's no wonder that this is how the story often ends.

Shame. Beamdog was a great studio. At least before they got bought by these people. MythForce is quite a misfit in their portfolio. Like Anthem was for Bioware. Maybe studios should stick to what they're good at.

Not just a game studio thing; it seems to be endemic throughout tech. And for that matter, I know a guy who has a business making eco-friendly bamboo toilet paper who has been hoping for years that a big boy will buy it up.
To some extent, at least in tech, I think it's making a virtue of necessity--the big monopolists will not let you grow a company to become a serious competitor, so might as well try to get the buyout quickly so you end up with a decent return on your time investment . . .

This really spiralled out of control during the early 2000:s when both Google and Microsoft where wearing their big spending pants so a lot of startups had the single goal of being acquired by either for billions.

I was in 2007 searching for investors to massively increase the capacity of a new computer cloud that I and a friend (I as the developer and he as the initial investor) had started (basically a competitor to AWS EC2 but with more features and performance at the time), basically every single such meeting ended with them trying to convince us to instead shift focus to something that Google and Microsoft would be interested in buying up in a short while (this was before Google and Microsoft where interested in cloud computing, so so much for those investors potential to see the future...).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraWhat I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

I'm not sure this is a useful percentage. Most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place, right?

Which kinda is on point no?

One of us has a big misunderstanding here. :D Let's find out who.

You said "only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store" have been using Metal. My point is that this might(!) be 100% of the apps needing a low-level 3D API in the first place. So we can't conclude "it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it".

That "most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place" is exactly my point. It means that they went through all this trouble fragmenting the graphics API scene only to cater to 9% of apps (and most likely only a subset of those apps really benefits meaning that the real number is lower).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraNo, no one is saying that Metal isn't better than OpenGL or OpenGL ES. The point is that Metal wasn't that much better than OpenGL or OpenGL ES […]

Says who? The difference between Metal & OpenGL are the same as Vulkan & OpenGL (potentially immense). Metal is just easier to use than Vulkan (according to developers comparing both).

And Vulkan isn't that much better than OpenGL ES on a mobile either unless we talk really graphically intensive games and then mobile and iOS isn't the platform for that anyway nor is macOS, and even then Vulkan/Metal is not always better than OpenGL (you have to be very thread dependent for Vulkan/Metal to be much better).

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraYes and that makes it the 9% I wrote earlier. The point being that even 3 full years after the introduction 91% of app-makers still though that OpenGL ES was good enough which means that iOS didn't gain any major benefits over Android by implementing Metal. So that closes the door on "Apple was forced to implement Metal or iOS would be obsolete" that some people throw around (note that I don't accuse you of doing that, the same discussion is happening on Phoronix at the moment).

I don't get what you're calculating.

Most applications don't use any graphics library, usage is abstracted by the system. That's true for all systems, therefore already 1,7 million apps were using Metal (probably almost all).

The 9% (of all apps) must be compared to the apps that are directly using a graphics library, e.g. games. Since we don't have any numbers on that, we can only guess.

9% where the ones using Metal directly and is Apples own numbers. And that most applications don't use any graphics library is kinda the point in showing that the "desperate need" for Metal wasn't and isn't really there.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraSo Apple didn't _need_ Metal, they could have waited for Vulkan just like Google did. And hadn't they been so hell bent on NIH and vendor lock-in they could have spear-headed the collaborative project to replace OpenGL with a new better API, and that by all means could have been Metal.

Obviously they want to & actually control everything on their systems (from hardware to software). But waiting makes a huge difference. They release each year a new generation of hardware which is restricted by size, power & heat. In the best case scenario, Metal was like a new GPU generation, just by software.

To answer this question: The first Metal based game was released in 2014 (https://www.pocket-lint.com/games/news/131021-asphalt-8-airborne-is-first-metal-ready-game-for-ios-8-and-boy-does-it-look-lovely/)

But think whatever you want. I know you're wrong & I've done enough to try convince you.

No you haven't, you have not provided a single argument for why Apple was in such a desperate need of Metal vs just using OpenGL ES until Vulkan came or launching a collab for a open replacement of OpenGL outside of NIH and vendor lock-in.

Every single mobile manufacturer releases each year a new generation of hardware and they are all restricted in size, power & heat, none of this is Apple specific problems, so that is not an argument either.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraNo I have no data regarding iOS usage, Android works quite well with OpenGL ES though so I see no reason why the iPad could not have done that aswell. To me Metal is just too much NIH and an attempt to perform vendor lock-in on primarily iOS.

That's like saying Vulkan is redundant. OpenGL ES is just subset of OpenGL, it retains the flaws of the API.

No, no one is saying that Metal isn't better than OpenGL or OpenGL ES. The point is that Metal wasn't that much better than OpenGL or OpenGL ES that Apple had to go full on NIH and further fragment the graphics API market, _unless_ they ofc wanted to ride the wave of vendor lock-in.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraWhat I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

I haven't found concrete numbers, but there are estimates of the available games in the app store: 200,000-800,000. Even taking 800,000 as an estimate (which is unlikely when, 2022 were only 1,783,232 apps in the store, this number comes from Apple) 148,000 would be quite good.

According to Apple, more than 148,000 applications use Metal directly, and 1.7 million use it through high-level frameworks, as of June 2017

It's not limited to games but internally used everywhere.

Yes and that makes it the 9% I wrote earlier. The point being that even 3 full years after the introduction 91% of app-makers still though that OpenGL ES was good enough which means that iOS didn't gain any major benefits over Android by implementing Metal. So that closes the door on "Apple was forced to implement Metal or iOS would be obsolete" that some people throw around (note that I don't accuse you of doing that, the same discussion is happening on Phoronix at the moment).

So Apple didn't _need_ Metal, they could have waited for Vulkan just like Google did. And hadn't they been so hell bent on NIH and vendor lock-in they could have spear-headed the collaborative project to replace OpenGL with a new better API, and that by all means could have been Metal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraWhat I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

I'm not sure this is a useful percentage. Most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place, right?

Which kinda is on point no?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: ShmerlTimeline starts with Mantle which presented such ideas before Apple and MS rushed to make NIH knock offs of them. And AMD from the beginning expressed the interest to make it a common API. That's why Mantle later was turned into Vulkan. Basically, collaboration on it could have started from the beginning, if Apple and MS weren't arrogant lock-in proponents who benefit from work of others either way.

Mantle is omitted since it's the starting point for all APIs. AMD themselves provided Microsoft on everything about Mantle to develop Direct3D 12. They don't really cared about an open API, they cared about an API which would boost their GPUs.

Quoting: F.UltraYour timeline is faulty, Vulkan was first announced in July 2014 at the SIGGRAPH conference. And ofc development had been quicker if say Apple and Microsoft had decided to join the development, one cannot just ignore the massive amount of money and resources that those two have compared with Khronos.

Yes, I missed the date. But they didn't announce Vulkan, they announced that work on the next API started. A month after Apple released Metal. Khronos also has a bad history about API announcements (remember Long Peaks?).

According to some (random) opinions, Metal seems to be a just different API and easier to use than Vulkan. It's probably more of a OpenGL replacement than Vulkan, but I can't say much about that. But we know that Vulkan is hard to use.

Quoting: F.UltraAlso I don't see why waiting would have been such a problem, the first wave of games released with Metal came in 2017 anyway since everyone waited to see it stabilize first.

Can you provide a source when it was first used on iOS? Metal started on iOS where performance is much more limited. The impact of OpenGL/driver overhead is much bigger.

No I have no data regarding iOS usage, Android works quite well with OpenGL ES though so I see no reason why the iPad could not have done that aswell. To me Metal is just too much NIH and an attempt to perform vendor lock-in on primarily iOS.

What I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: ShmerlYour timeline is misleading. Both MS and Apple can be blamed for not supporting Vulkan. They did it very deliberately knowing it's being developed, since they did it out of obvious lock-in intent.

Are you serious? My timeline? We are talking about facts (The way it's a fact, that Apple wants to get games on macOS, because they said so). But to spell it out: Apple released Metal two years before Vulkan was released. Or in other words: To support Vulkan Apple would had to wait two whole years.

To signify how much time two years are: How successful would the Steam Deck be if players had to wait two years for any game to be playable? Steam machine ring a bell?

Your timeline is faulty, Vulkan was first announced in July 2014 at the SIGGRAPH conference. And ofc development had been quicker if say Apple and Microsoft had decided to join the development, one cannot just ignore the massive amount of money and resources that those two have compared with Khronos.

Also I don't see why waiting would have been such a problem, the first wave of games released with Metal came in 2017 anyway since everyone waited to see it stabilize first.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Loftyfor some reason i can't get excited about those graphs. Sure new games on ultra high @4k with raytracing are going to be demanding. But i can't shake the feeling that an uber expensive brand new high TDP 7900XTX with TFLOPs to space and back should be able to run these current games around 60FPS without FSR3.

will FS3 be used to justify even more shitty optimisation of AAA titles ?

Honestly AAA gaming is pretty much dead to me right now, it's not the Size of the games, the lacklustre optimisation, the exorbitant pricing models on unfinished releases with DLC being used as a patch, or the not actually owning it, or even the DRM anti-cheat spyware.. let alone the way these companies treat their staff. It's actually because most (not all) of these games frankly suck.

That said, im really enjoying Indie / AA and retro games a heck of a lot more TBH and i dont need FS3 for that.

One thing would be the improved Anti Aliasing that FSR and DLSS brings, that is what makes some people claim that it makes games look better than native. Also if we play with the thought that FSR3 and DLSS3.5 produces an image that is as good or better than native then you can run games at the same FPS but with lower power draw and thus lower temps.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kerossin"Ubuntu Desktop team continues to "grow rapidly"" this is surprising considering their ridiculous and lengthy hiring process.

"they're bringing Netplan to Ubuntu Desktop to "deliver a more unified experience for those managing Ubuntu across both server and desktop"" last time I managed Ubuntu servers I ripped out Netplan and just used systemd-networkd directly. It's just a poorly implemented wrapper around systemd-networkd configs.

The benefit of netplan is that you can switch from systemd-netword to NetManager (and/or the reverse) and still keep the exact same config and syntax.

View this comment - View article - View full comments