Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Liam DaweI don't see how a port existing actually changes anything for Linux as a platform

The way I see it, a benefit of developing natively (note I am not saying port) would be beneficial to finding and addressing pain points in general - with graphics, audio layers, engines and tooling, etc. Shortcomings there are often cited as reasons not to provide said support and squeaky wheels get the grease. A possible guard against Valve changing directions or MS pulling something to put a big damper on things (UWP?).

I'm sorry you find people noticing and commenting on a long time dev stopping support annoying; it's kinda relevant to the game at hand for this community. You are definitely not wrong that most people just want to hit play and have fun. Here and in general, most people don't care about inner workings. Still, plenty do and as far as I see, we're just discussing a topic at hand. It doesn't mean the game is bad, people are wrong for buying it and playing it and liking it.

As I said so many times already, for me my big issue was their radio silence all these months. I still think it looks great, it's still on my wishlist.

While it is disheartening to see a long time supporter like Frictional drop support (to be honest though we don't know 100% yet if they have, and if they have we also don't know the reason yet) I find it hard not to agree with Liam here.

The native Linux ports have always been a second class citizen (and sometimes third) that stops being updated, often falling behind the Windows version in features, often being incompatible in multiplayer with Windows or macOS players and so on and on.

And in the time before proton, wine was so bad that none or few of us saw it as being a potential way forward in the future so our only hope back then was to get these native half-hearted ports. But then Proton came and everything changed, and the need for a native version is slim to non existent anymore.

Yes a game being built from the ground up with cross platform support where every single effort have been made to optimize it for every single platform would be amazing and such a game would fly in Linux like nothing on any other platform but we have to realize that we are not there market size wise where any game developer will go that route.

So until that changes (aka when we get enough market share) I'll rather take a well working game in Proton over a half-hearted native port that quickly gets abandonware.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ssj17vegetaAs a non-american, just asking : can Nintendo be sued for this ? Is there such a thing in US law as a "counter-DMCA" or "abusive use of copyright laws" ?

No, a copyright holder filing a DMCA cannot be punished in any way shape or form unless they filed the DMCA for something that they didn't hold copyright on AND if you can prove that they new that they didn't hold that copyright.

That said there is a counter-thing built into DMCA where the Dolphin devs in this case can tell Valve "we think the DMCA was filed in error so please add our software back", once that have happened the next step for Nintendo is to either drop the case entirely with "oops my bad" or to sue the Dolphin devs in court for copyright infringement. Since the devs know that they have published the encryption key and that this key is protected under the DMCA they most likely do not want to risk being sued so they will not try to file a counter DMCA.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: robvvApparently, Valve initiated the conversation [External Link]... :grin:

That certainly puts a different spin on the story.

sounds like a troll to me, Valve cannot legally claim a DMCA if there where no DMCA.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: MaathShould I not be offended by the term "boomer shooter?" "Boomer" has become a derogatory term since the "OK Boomer" meme to signify older people whose opinions, knowledge, and experience we no longer care to hear. I assume it is being used at least partly in that way here, since the games in question hearken back to the mid-90s, which would have been Gen-X era (maybe millennials, though I suspect they were mostly too young). Likely most baby boomers don't even play video games.

Or maybe I'm over thinking it and it just rhymes better than Gen-Xer FPSer.

That and you get the added bonus connotation of "things go boom".

Not to mention that the term is completely wrong as well. Every one who was around at the time knows that the proper term for these types of games are Doom Clones.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Phlebiac

Even with all the talk about 8GB VRAM simply not being enough now

This just seems obscene to me...

Besides the (always useful) phoronix benchmarks, I also find this helpful in finding good value:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html [External Link]

It doesn't have data for the latest models just yet, but you can see that the RX 6650 XT is a great value; I considered one a few months back, but got a good deal on a 3060Ti.

As absurd as it might sound, 8GB is really holding the nVidia cards back: 16GB vs. 8GB VRAM: Radeon RX 6800 vs. GeForce RTX 3070, 2023 Revisit [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mrdeathjrWell if rtx 4060ti is a fail in various levels, this card join to same group

Personally seems better rx 6700 10gb or 6700/50 xt 12gb and back to rx 7600 as rtx 4060 ti/non ti are stupid cards with stupid price

:smile:

The 4060ti is a major fail because it performs basically equally to or even in some instances worse then the 3060ti so it remains to see how the 7600 stacks up against the 6600 (non xt).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

Right, not all of them hide under the bridge, some of them hang around and just leap out like brigands. Read up about Commodore and the XOR. They were basically taken out by a patent troll. Everyone else paid the bridge toll, but Commodore refused / couldn't, so the CD32 was blocked from being sold in the USA.

Software patents should never have been granted by the USPTO and the XOR patent in itself is a perfect example of why considering just how simple and silly it is. And Cadtrak is a sorry state of a company, they initially did products and services but then sales when bad they went all patent troll.

The thing is though, if the solution to this problem is to invalidate patents held by people and/or corporations that doesn't produce any products then how would you get about raising money to develop your splendid idea or how would you manage to sell it to off to a company to get royalties since they could all just steal your idea since you cannot patent it (or even if you did patent it then you would loose it since you have no production).

Also if that requirement would ever take effect then the patent trolls would probably just buy some low volume AliExpress producer to claim that "yes we have products, we are not a troll". So I don't see this as a solution.

This is how the patents were originally. You needed to show some sort of working prototype for it. Granted this was back when the patent office was first formed. One couldn't just make shit up and then get a patent for it. That was my point. The prototyping of it, and then getting it to a company that can mass produce it is the entire purpose of the patent system, so the inventor can then get paid for the invention, with profits also going to the company mass producing it. Everybody wins, consumers have a new thing to use as well. The problem these days is you need a bunch of money to even get a patent. So many corporations offer to file the patent for inventors, but then the inventors get screwed over, and may get nothing from their own ideas. (anecdotally heard about some guy who supposedly had this happen to him for the air cushion in some shoes, or something like that (heard the story a decade+ ago)).

But yes, software patents are the worse. And back on subject, most of the patents that Immersion owns at this stage are software, right? I haven't actually looked, but it seemed that way back in the day as well.

Considering that this requirement was removed already back in 1836 I don't think that we will see a resurgence of that one soon, but originally patents where much much worse than they are even today, back in the UK where it all started people got patents for "water" and "salt".

And the Immersion patents are actually on a similar level. looking at the ones they have sued Valve for:

7,336,260 - if you press on a touch sensitve surface then the controller can signal back with a tactile sensation to let the user know that the press have been recorded.
8,749,507 - if you press on a touch sensitive surface, software can use the length of the press and the orientation of the press to determine what the user intended-
9,430,042 - a touch sensitive surface can be used to create a virtual detent through tactical feedback.

they had 4 more patents but I could not be bothered to read more since they are all so silly, or rather they are all something that an engineer would solve if found with the same problem which is a requirement for a patent even today so they should never have been granted in the first place IMHO.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

Right, not all of them hide under the bridge, some of them hang around and just leap out like brigands. Read up about Commodore and the XOR. They were basically taken out by a patent troll. Everyone else paid the bridge toll, but Commodore refused / couldn't, so the CD32 was blocked from being sold in the USA.

Software patents should never have been granted by the USPTO and the XOR patent in itself is a perfect example of why considering just how simple and silly it is. And Cadtrak is a sorry state of a company, they initially did products and services but then sales when bad they went all patent troll.

The thing is though, if the solution to this problem is to invalidate patents held by people and/or corporations that doesn't produce any products then how would you get about raising money to develop your splendid idea or how would you manage to sell it to off to a company to get royalties since they could all just steal your idea since you cannot patent it (or even if you did patent it then you would loose it since you have no production).

Also if that requirement would ever take effect then the patent trolls would probably just buy some low volume AliExpress producer to claim that "yes we have products, we are not a troll". So I don't see this as a solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments