Quoting: BielFPsThe two main point I said before all these people quoting me was
-Valve profit from both Windows and Linux sales, despite deck success or not
-Valve is not support Linux for ideological reasons, but because Linux is a way to make then independent to Microsoft.

I want to make it clear that I never intended to contradict these two points. They are both true.

I do think, however, that if the Steam Deck were to be turned into something that most people converted to Windows, Valve would consider it a failed attempt to further establish their independence from Microsoft. Having people running Windows on the Steam Deck is not their goal, despite that still being profitable for them.

I also have serious doubts that any less than 75%, and probably more like 90%+, of Steam Deck owners will keep Steam OS as the installed system (at least for the first three years) just because that's what came on it.

(Edit: I would like to add that I don't think Valve would go to all the trouble they have supporting Linux strictly for ideological reasons, but I do think that Gabe Newell likes that supporting Linux also is in line with his ideology on the subject of operating systems.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWhat i say is that Valve doesn't need to add anything to implement (nor to implement anything).
All the implementation is already there; Valve just need to ship protonGE alongside Vanilla Proton.

I suspect that there are legal obstacles to them shipping protonGE, or they would already make it available through Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsThey don't need to say this exactly, they can just keep saying as they says today "Sorry we don't have support for your platform" and let the users do the math.

They can do this as long as they don't care about missing out on any sales that would go to Steam Deck owners. In that case, they don't really have to say anything. How important this is to them depends on how many Steam Decks end up being sold.

Quoting: BielFPsI don't think so, specially if this results in "more games being available to my console". Remember that not all Steam Deck buyers are Linux fans (most don't even care about which system they're running) so more games (specially the not support popular ones) are a great motivation for people to change (which was my first comment).

Imagine for example, if there was a (legal) way to run Nintendo games in the play station, where the procedure would involve just tweaking the system's console, even non technical users would have interest in doing this procedure because it would mean "more new games" as result.

This seems out of touch with mainstream users.

If users could practically run Windows from the SD card, then there might be a more significant percentage to actually do that, but my experience with SD cards and with Windows suggests that would not be a terribly pleasant experience, assuming it's possible without messing up the existing operating system.

Changing the operating system to Windows is not something the majority of people will be interested in doing (especially not permanently).

Quoting: BielFPsYep

Yes, very much so. Valve making sure Windows will install is in no way the same thing as supporting it. The person writing that article makes an assumption. Nothing I have heard from Valve suggests they will be supporting Windows. Valve's "support" of Windows will consist of making sure there are no absolute roadblocks to using it as far as I have heard them say up to this point.

You seem assured that running Windows on the Steam Deck will be a very common thing. The only way that this will happen is if things don't work out the way Valve wants them to at all. If the Steam Deck were to flop once released, then Valve might consider actually supporting Windows installations to sell through the remaining units.

Most people don't replace the operating system on any device they buy. I say this as someone who is perfectly willing to do that myself, but is self-aware enough to know that I am in the minority.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsAlso like I said before in other deck article, it costs $0,00 for developers to say to users "just install windows on it" making this a possible threat for Linux support.

They really can't do this. They would be ridiculed for telling their customers to install Windows on the Steam Deck unless some percentage approaching half of all Steam Deck users were already doing it anyway, and that is very highly unlikely.

Though Valve will not put up any obstacles to installing Windows, they have no intention of supporting Windows on the Steam Deck. The mainstream majority of Steam Deck purchasers are not going to switch to an unsupported option; the mainstream majority never do. The entry level Steam Deck has too little storage to comfortably run Windows with much of anything else, and that will be the most common version of the console/computer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: BielFPsSadly 9 of the top 15 games are borked

Sure, but 8 of those are from anti-cheat. I would be really surprised if Valve were unable to persuade those people to enable their anticheat to work with Proton.

I don't think Valve holds as much persuasive power as one would imagine. I suspect not many of these developers are going to bother at all.

I don't think the persuasive power would be directly Valve's, but the sales of the Steam Deck. I think it all depends on how big the Steam Deck is. So far, it looks pretty big, but we'll see, I guess.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: WorMzyI get that Alyx was supposed to be a showcase of VR potential and shoehorning keyboard and mouse support afterwards is unlikely to provide a comparative gaming experience, but it annoys me that I can't play the latest game in a series I've been playing since the late 1990s just because I can't splash out £1000+ on an sparsely-used gimmicky bit of tech that I wouldn't even be able to use unless I reorganise my living room. :unsure:

You're right about the expense, so I think the trick is that you make sure that it's not "sparsely used". And if you think it's a gimmick, then you'll never spend that kind of money, I agree. I usually find that people who call VR a gimmick though just haven't tried VR on a modern headset. If if you have, and you still think it's a gimmick, I don't know what to say!

It's definitely not a gimmick to me though. The games I play in VR very different to what I'd play in "pancake" mode, but they're just as much fun, albeit in a different way.

I'm in VR about two or three times a week, even if only for 15 minutes in BoxVR to get some (much needed) exercise. My last big adventure in VR was The Room VR, which was superb, and now I'm enjoying Until you Fall which Liam streamed a while back. But I have hundreds of hours in Elite, which doesn't need any room to play at all (you just sit at your desk, as normal). Nor does Automobilista 2, or Ultrawings, or any cockpit-style game.

As long as you don't think of VR as being some big revolution that's gonna change gaming (spoiler: it won't), you'll get more out of it, I think.

I haven't used VR really, but your sentiments seem to match my expectations. Whether it's a "gimmick" I guess depends on your definition of the word "gimmick." I think of VR as more akin to a steering wheel or a flight yoke and pedals. It's very useful for the games that it suits, but not the way you'd want to play every game, and a certain combination of expense, effort, and room is required to get started (an investment that I haven't been prepared make yet, though the dedicated space might be my biggest obstacle).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: STiATAnd according to tests, 6800 XT is actually worse than 3070Ti to the sources I am reading at least. But ye, I couldn't cool a 3080 either ...

From what I was reading, 6800 XT is pretty close to 3080 Ti, so I don't expect it to be worse than 3070 Ti really (I mean performance wise).

Very well, I've looked it up, it's actually true, the 6800 TX is ~3.6 % faster than a 3070 Ti, and ~5 % slower than a 3080, so somewhere in between those two :D.

The latest tests I've seen from Phoronix show the 6800 XT overall beating out the 3070 Ti rather easily and even edging out the 3080 overall (note: not the 3080 Ti; they don't currently have one of those to test). On those tests, the 6800 (non-XT) results look more like what you've stated.

Of course, Phoronix results are Linux only, but I'm not generally concerned with Windows results because I don't use Windows at home for anything but tying in to work (and that only because the software that lets me answer my work desk phone from home only works on Windows). Since they've shifted us back to coming into the office, I don't even really do that anymore (I can do on-call work from home on Linux).

If you have Linux results from another source I'd like to add it to the sources I look at for reference.

Thanks.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Under normal circumstances, I would have had to update my build for the video card by now, but with these crazy prices, I'm just not going to buy one right now. I'm waiting until prices return to some semblance of normal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: CFWhitmanI just don't see the appeal of playing as someone who is obviously a bad guy. For example, the whole GTA series is completely lost on me. Never played them; never wanted to.

I play a lot of different games, not all of them free of violence.

I guess you are suggesting that a protagonist in the GTA series is "obviously a bad guy." That seems to be "highly dependent on your point of view" as well. Certainly, they do bad things, but so do a lot of "heroes." A lot of games have protagonists who run around killing people but aren't coded as "criminals."

Nonsense. The people who do things like those portrayed in GTA don't think they are the good guys. They just don't care about being the good guys. They might sometimes rationalize it that they have excuses, but that's not the same thing as thinking they are doing good.

That's not what I said, but let me put it to you this way. I have worked in the criminal justice system for the last 12 years. I've encountered many people who take responsibility for criminal acts, and many who recognize that they did a bad thing. I have never met a person who considers himself a "bad guy" because of his criminal record. Further, I have rarely met a person I didn't think had the capacity for good, even if they had an extensive history of doing bad things.

Really you're going off on a tangent here. You just said that these people recognize that they did a bad thing. That means that they know that while they were doing it they were 'being the bad guy.' That's not the same thing as a judgment of their life's worth, i.e. saying that they are 'bad guys' altogether. I didn't pick out that terminology; that's just the name of the bundle. This isn't a philosophical discussion on whether people can find redemption for their crimes. I just don't enjoy playing games where my motive in the game is completely selfish/criminal/evil.

It's a philosophical discussion on the nature of good and evil, and you started it. Your claim was that there are some situations where the morality of your actions is subjective. The fact is, that's most situations. Very few people do things with the intention of being evil. You then equated breaking laws with being "bad," which is a whole other can of worms. But I'll leave it at that.

While I said that there have been many conflicts over the years where both sides thought they were right, I disagree about the morality of your actions being subjective most of the time. Most of the time it's not very subjective. The only reason I brought up the subjectivity of it is to make it clear I'm talking about games where it's not subjective, such as GTA and games where you are clearly taking on the role of "the bad guy" for the duration of the game, even according to the game's developers. I did not intend to explore the tangent of moral subjectivity or the tangent of judging real-life criminals.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: CFWhitmanI just don't see the appeal of playing as someone who is obviously a bad guy. For example, the whole GTA series is completely lost on me. Never played them; never wanted to.

I play a lot of different games, not all of them free of violence.

I guess you are suggesting that a protagonist in the GTA series is "obviously a bad guy." That seems to be "highly dependent on your point of view" as well. Certainly, they do bad things, but so do a lot of "heroes." A lot of games have protagonists who run around killing people but aren't coded as "criminals."

Nonsense. The people who do things like those portrayed in GTA don't think they are the good guys. They just don't care about being the good guys. They might sometimes rationalize it that they have excuses, but that's not the same thing as thinking they are doing good.

That's not what I said, but let me put it to you this way. I have worked in the criminal justice system for the last 12 years. I've encountered many people who take responsibility for criminal acts, and many who recognize that they did a bad thing. I have never met a person who considers himself a "bad guy" because of his criminal record. Further, I have rarely met a person I didn't think had the capacity for good, even if they had an extensive history of doing bad things.

Really you're going off on a tangent here. You just said that these people recognize that they did a bad thing. That means that they know that while they were doing it they were 'being the bad guy.' That's not the same thing as a judgment of their life's worth, i.e. saying that they are 'bad guys' altogether. I didn't pick out that terminology; that's just the name of the bundle. This isn't a philosophical discussion on whether people can find redemption for their crimes. I just don't enjoy playing games where my motive in the game is completely selfish/criminal/evil.

View this comment - View article - View full comments