[quote=iiari]

Quoting: Nevertheless

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: NeverthelessIt appears to be an anti-competitive ploy. They now own a streaming service...

If that's the reason, then I think protecting the streaming service will most likely hurt the rest more than it helps.

Wait, what streaming service does Unity own/have, or is this all about future potential?

According to the article, they bought the streaming part of Multiplay in 2017. (http://multiplaygameservers.com).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NeverthelessWhat I still don't get is Unitys interests in this. Did they really plan to upset their customers to squeeze money out of streaming services?

It appears to be an anti-competitive ploy. They now own a streaming service, so if they restrict you from using their engine for your streaming service, then there is less competition for their streaming service.

If Unity use were great enough to constitute a monopoly you could use this as a legal argument to force them to split the streaming service into a separate company so that there would be no motive for the development company to restrict its customers in this way. I don't think that Unity quite rises to the status of a monopoly, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wintermute

Quoting: EikeWhen using streaming, shouldn't the client only need minimal software, comparable to what is in the Steam Link?

As far as I can see the terms cover using a Steam Link too: "over the Internet or other network"

The terms may seem to cover using a Steam Link, but there are practical reasons why they don't really.

First, the terms only concern themselves with redistribution and using Steam Link doesn't constitute redistribution, so the terms don't actually apply in that case. These terms are for the developer, not the user of the product developed. You could read all the terms as though they started with, "When you are redistributing the software...."

Second, it is neither practical nor desirable to try to limit use over Steam Link. In other words, 'Who's gonna know?' and, 'Who cares?'

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: CFWhitmanThe reason they can do this is because streaming a game basically distributes a copy to whomever is playing it (though the copy technically is on the server, an image of it is transmitted to the user). Since Unity have to license redistribution rights to all developers who use the engine, they can control the terms of that redistribution. Of course, it's quite possible that outside companies could continue to use an older version which doesn't have the restrictive terms, though I'm sure that Unity would try to prevent this.

When using streaming, shouldn't the client only need minimal software, comparable to what is in the Steam Link?

Yes, but an additional copy is created for each user and then the results of what it's doing are distributed to a client. That is generally considered to be enough to constitute redistribution. In the case of a Steam Link, the results of the same copy already running on the computer go to another device used by the same person who is running the computer, so that does not constitute redistribution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: CFWhitmanThe reason they can do this is because streaming a game basically distributes a copy to whomever is playing it (though the copy technically is on the server, an image of it is transmitted to the user). Since Unity have to license redistribution rights to all developers who use the engine, they can control the terms of that redistribution. Of course, it's quite possible that outside companies could continue to use an older version which doesn't have the restrictive terms, though I'm sure that Unity would try to prevent this.

Yeah, that doesn't seem possible: https://twitter.com/Improbableio/status/1083361046696476672 [External Link]

Whether they can change the terms retroactively is something that would most likely have to be settled in court if it were challenged. Changing terms retroactively is rather dubious legally, but I'm sure the liars, err lawyers could come up with some kind of argument.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The reason they can do this is because streaming a game basically distributes a copy to whomever is playing it (though the copy technically is on the server, an image of it is transmitted to the user). Since Unity have to license redistribution rights to all developers who use the engine, they can control the terms of that redistribution. Of course, it's quite possible that outside companies could continue to use an older version which doesn't have the restrictive terms, though I'm sure that Unity would try to prevent this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Avehicle7887I see many people saying Nvidia drivers are bad etc without mentioning a few key points. Sure they are closed source and not as friendly as others in the Linux world but:

- They've offered Linux support for a long time, I still remember NV drivers back when Ubuntu was all the rage (Ubuntu 10.04 etc).

I used Nvidia with their closed source drivers at least as early as 2001 on Slackware and Linux Mandrake when I was playing Loki Entertainment releases for Linux. It was a bit more manual at the time than it is today.

Still, I switched to AMD video cards for the desktops I put together and ran Linux on at home about seven years ago, when I decided the open source drivers were more future proof. Now I have a Vega 56 card in this machine.

The only issue with my current approach is that, though the open source approach is more future proof, you find yourself on the bleeding edge when you first get a new card at least some of the time. I have Ubuntu Studio 18.10 on this machine, but I still have to use the Padoka PPA and an Ukuu loaded kernel to get Rise of the Tomb Raider to run correctly. Of course, so far it runs very well and looks very good even with the settings quite high (that is, the highest standard setting).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/ [External Link]

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/ [External Link]

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/ [External Link]
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

It's not that big companies don't want to make more money. It's that big companies like maximum return on investment. If they are already making a lot of money, they start to care more about profit percentage than total profit. Smaller companies can't afford that luxury.

Really though, it doesn't matter that much why smaller publishers care more about diversifying their audience. The fact that smaller publishers are more likely to support Linux is fairly obvious when you go to buy a game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: CFWhitmanOn Windows, this is just another RTS, but on Linux it might be the RTS.

Maybe for some people it could be, but I can think of a whole bunch of RTS games that we already have and are much more interesting.

In that case, perhaps it won't do that well on Linux either (I've never played it, so I have no idea how good it is). Still, any potential it does have is more likely to get noticed among the fewer games that are available to Linux users. I'm sure the developers want to believe they have made a good game, and are hoping they can find an audience who will agree with them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/ [External Link]

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/ [External Link]

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/ [External Link]
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

This is why Linux has gotten a lot more support from indie developers than from the major video game publishers. They want every sale they can get. On Windows, this is just another RTS, but on Linux it might be the RTS.

Still, I'm not sure that porting a title that's been out for this long and seems to be this much work would make the additional sales of this game by itself worth it, but if they are planning more releases with the same engine, that may be all the incentive they need.

View this comment - View article - View full comments