Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LEANIJAIt should be noted that this is not actually in development at Microsoft. This was a project at a hackathon by AndrewMT at MS in Sept. 2022 that didnt go anywhere.

"I started this hackathon project and it didn’t go much of anywhere, but this article uses wording to make it seem like it’s something under development. Problem is - We just didn’t have the right engineers to do a lot of what we wanted to do in the short hackathon project timeframe. Maybe this odd article can help me pitch this to Microsoft again. Phil Spencer was very nice and tried to drive me to some people that could help, but everyone was tied-up at the time."

more & source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/12kjgkh/comment/jg3lsvm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 [External Link]

Well, so much for that, then.

I was actually thinking to myself that the main reason not to be too worried about this is that I have doubts about Microsoft's ability to actually do it--not so much lack of technical capacity, although yeah, maybe, as lack of institutional ability to really deliver it. And here we are . . . seems they're not really doing it, because they're institutionally not able to pick up the ball and run with it.

Well the problem with MS is that even when doing it half assed they still are large enough to make changes in the industry, I mean look just at how they managed to completely kill off netbooks and things like the OLPC project just by basically showing up. Basically the only resistance they have faced so far is Android/iPhone and the iPod.

If they just slap a working deck-like UI on top of Windows then some HW manufacturer sure will make the Steam Deck sales look like low volume, bloat can always be countered with beefier hardware and unfortunately marketing and big brand name will always surpass features, capabilities and technological supremacy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: EagleDeltaI disagree. As I work in Software Development you have two competing problems as a company:

1. Make promises to get buy-in ahead of time or the project never gets off the ground.
2. You simply don't know what you don't know until you get to that point. The reality being that UE5 was not available when Everspace 2 started development and they were able to port Everspace 1 to Linux before. Imagine the surprise when you finally get to that work, only to find that the promise you had to make to get funding now no longer is viable from a technical standpoint without starting the entire project over on a new engine.... which is infeasible this late.

This issue doesn't happen as much in Tech due to the fear of customer churn on very expensive services. By comparison, once Game Devs (and Engine Devs) get their money, it's on to the next project since that up-front revenue does nothing but fade off over time. And, sadly, this part of the issue falls squarely on gamers' shoulders. As long as gamers continue to pay for things despite what GameDevs and Engine Devs do, there won't be any incentive to stop.

Sorry but you don't understand, the point isn't only a technical one.
You seem to find excuses where there are none...
When you promise a Linux version (or macOS), you do it from the start to avoid the maximum of issues, that was repeatedly said on this website from many people.
You don't start to "port" your game on Linux 1-2 months before the full release.
They never spoke about their difficulties about the Linux version, and yet they announce on the release day that there won't be Linux native, it's just dishonest.
They lied to us dude, it's simple.

Bonus (as I posted in the forum "Crowdfunding page suggestions"): https://www.youtube.com/live/CxYPVee36sY?feature=share&t=3250 [External Link]
Dare to tell me this guy is honest...

But yeah, this time I learned the lesson: never a trust a dev even if they released their previous game on Linux. I'm tired of it and, UE4 issues or not, I don't think I'm the only one.

Most likely is that doing the port once the game was complete worked for the first game, so they though in error that it would be the same with the new game, especially since they switched to Vulkan which works great on Linux. Of course they should have checked how well UE4 handles Vulkan on Linux before but then there are always lots of things that one could do.

In the end I don't really understand the outrage here. Are you guys on the "I will only buy native games" side arguing that they should have released the native version with horrible performance and have every Linux gamer switch to the proton version anyway due to the performance difference?

exit: of course I understand the outrage, I mean it was a kickstart goal that was met so they didn't deliver what was promised, should have worded that part differently.

Atleast for me, it's not not buy game, but not support them on kickstarter. Is good idea buying game years before release from developer who proved he is not trustworthy?

No argument here, I would never buy something with a faint promise on say Kickstarter.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: EagleDeltaI disagree. As I work in Software Development you have two competing problems as a company:

1. Make promises to get buy-in ahead of time or the project never gets off the ground.
2. You simply don't know what you don't know until you get to that point. The reality being that UE5 was not available when Everspace 2 started development and they were able to port Everspace 1 to Linux before. Imagine the surprise when you finally get to that work, only to find that the promise you had to make to get funding now no longer is viable from a technical standpoint without starting the entire project over on a new engine.... which is infeasible this late.

This issue doesn't happen as much in Tech due to the fear of customer churn on very expensive services. By comparison, once Game Devs (and Engine Devs) get their money, it's on to the next project since that up-front revenue does nothing but fade off over time. And, sadly, this part of the issue falls squarely on gamers' shoulders. As long as gamers continue to pay for things despite what GameDevs and Engine Devs do, there won't be any incentive to stop.

Sorry but you don't understand, the point isn't only a technical one.
You seem to find excuses where there are none...
When you promise a Linux version (or macOS), you do it from the start to avoid the maximum of issues, that was repeatedly said on this website from many people.
You don't start to "port" your game on Linux 1-2 months before the full release.
They never spoke about their difficulties about the Linux version, and yet they announce on the release day that there won't be Linux native, it's just dishonest.
They lied to us dude, it's simple.

Bonus (as I posted in the forum "Crowdfunding page suggestions"): https://www.youtube.com/live/CxYPVee36sY?feature=share&t=3250 [External Link]
Dare to tell me this guy is honest...

But yeah, this time I learned the lesson: never a trust a dev even if they released their previous game on Linux. I'm tired of it and, UE4 issues or not, I don't think I'm the only one.

Most likely is that doing the port once the game was complete worked for the first game, so they though in error that it would be the same with the new game, especially since they switched to Vulkan which works great on Linux. Of course they should have checked how well UE4 handles Vulkan on Linux before but then there are always lots of things that one could do.

In the end I don't really understand the outrage here. Are you guys on the "I will only buy native games" side arguing that they should have released the native version with horrible performance and have every Linux gamer switch to the proton version anyway due to the performance difference?

exit: of course I understand the outrage, I mean it was a kickstart goal that was met so they didn't deliver what was promised, should have worded that part differently.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: natis1Per the Linus video it's double the performance at 35W and about 50% more performance at 15W TDP.

No word on lower TDPs but in combination with the much higher screen resolution and 120hz VRR it's probably going to chew through battery.

In other words; the mobility depends on the length of your power cord.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: robvvI completely mis-read the title of this article!

Came here to write the same thing :woot:

I don't get it, what did you read?! :happy:

Stop an orgasm spreading. One of those moments when the first and last letter matches and the length is aprox the same so the brain skips reading every letter and assumes the written word :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: robvvI completely mis-read the title of this article!

Came here to write the same thing :woot:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Zapporwhen 64-bit linux client

why 64-bit linux client

The idea is that if Steam is 64-bit (but still able to launch all those 32-bit games that will never be updated) then distros (and users) can drop all those (poorly secured) 32-bit packages that are no one wants to (or even really does) maintain.

The reasons for Ubuntu's (premature) desire to drop the maintenance and packaging of 32-bit packages at the same time as they dropped their 32-bit install images are still true, it's just that the infrastructure for ruining 32-bit proprietary applications on an entirely 64-bit system weren't yet up to the task. Without a significant push, it'll never be up to the task, and Valve dragging their feet on removing their dependency on 32-bit packages delays that push.

As I understand it.

But where would all those 32 bit games get their environment from?
As I understand it, a single 32 bit game I want to run would eliminate the advantages, right?

I believe the thinking is that Valve would provide them in their sandboxed "linux runtime", that way they would only be reachable for those old never to be updated anyway 32-bit games and thus could be removed from the system directories and from the distributions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

One can always criticize the implementation of course. I have zero experience with the software center since I only use apt directly and thus had zero problems removing snap from e.g servers (I run a few micro servers at aws where I had to really squeeze out every available byte of RAM).

But I can guess that it is difficult since they obviously want their users to use snap so they have built it into the system basically.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Sslaxx

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mumrik93Where did Atari get the money to buy them? The Atari VCS was a massive failure on so many levels I have issues believing any bank would be inclined to give them a loan.

They received €12.5M from their share holders last year by way of a rights issue and got a €2.4M loan from Irata LLC, according to their latest report they are still not profitable and had a higher loss in 2022-H2 then 2022-H1

Hmmm . . . maybe they said to the banks "Look, we aren't profitable, we have no idea how to start turning a profit, and we already owe you money. Our only chance of paying it back is if we take over someone who can make a profit and use their money. Lend us more so we can do that!"

They might go for it--that's more or less the business model of a lot of private equity firms.

I don't think they have talked to any banks, Irata LLC who they loaned money from looks to be a holding company controlled by the CEO of Atari (Wade Rosen) so it looks like he is for some reason trying to take over the company from the other owners. And it took me until right now before I realied that Irata is atarI spelled backwards...

Also Wade owns 13% of Night Dive. Come to a deal with them to carve up Atari, perhaps?

The plot thickens indeed. Not sure why though, the company does not go well economically.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mumrik93Where did Atari get the money to buy them? The Atari VCS was a massive failure on so many levels I have issues believing any bank would be inclined to give them a loan.

They received €12.5M from their share holders last year by way of a rights issue and got a €2.4M loan from Irata LLC, according to their latest report they are still not profitable and had a higher loss in 2022-H2 then 2022-H1

Hmmm . . . maybe they said to the banks "Look, we aren't profitable, we have no idea how to start turning a profit, and we already owe you money. Our only chance of paying it back is if we take over someone who can make a profit and use their money. Lend us more so we can do that!"

They might go for it--that's more or less the business model of a lot of private equity firms.

I don't think they have talked to any banks, Irata LLC who they loaned money from looks to be a holding company controlled by the CEO of Atari (Wade Rosen) so it looks like he is for some reason trying to take over the company from the other owners. And it took me until right now before I realied that Irata is atarI spelled backwards...

View this comment - View article - View full comments