Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

GNU/Linux stands for open, choice, the user being in control. Accessible to everyone. I write GNU/Linux out of respect to GNU components making up so much of the OS and it not just being a kernel (Linux). Having the ability for the user to decide what happens on their own machine is the idea - and if the user decides to run proprietary software, then that's part of it.

Towing Microsoft's line is not a part of that.

I don't see how having the option to run Windows software is toeing the line for Microsoft. If anything it's taking away the need to buy their operating system to run this stuff. Also, running Windows games, native games, Stadia games, open-source games, closed source games, GNU, MIT, whatever, is already a choice the user has. I don't see how working to make any of the above things work better is taking away the user's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to take people's freedom of choice away by shaming it away from them.

Trying to reword yourself?
I'm commenting on suggestions of "Proton" being the way forward as being just walking blindly into Microsoft's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to have that.

No, Proton is NOT the way to walking into Microsoft's control. What does Microsoft control here exactly? And if Microsoft completely stops supporting Windows or phasing it out or the company liquidates or anything, Proton-supported games will continue to work because they are running on top of an open source runtime layer. You don't have a valid argument. I'm not even sure you know what you are arguing here.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

GNU/Linux stands for open, choice, the user being in control. Accessible to everyone. I write GNU/Linux out of respect to GNU components making up so much of the OS and it not just being a kernel (Linux). Having the ability for the user to decide what happens on their own machine is the idea - and if the user decides to run proprietary software, then that's part of it.

Towing Microsoft's line is not a part of that.

I don't see how having the option to run Windows software is toeing the line for Microsoft. If anything it's taking away the need to buy their operating system to run this stuff. Also, running Windows games, native games, Stadia games, open-source games, closed source games, GNU, MIT, whatever, is already a choice the user has. I don't see how working to make any of the above things work better is taking away the user's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to take people's freedom of choice away by shaming it away from them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Weird way to sign off your post, didn't in any way suggest you were ... and people say I can be quite blunt? Heh.

Sounded patronising. Anyhoo (insert some tone-clarifying emoji here because internet and I'm old)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: rustybroomhandleWhen Proton does get marketed to developers it will be in the form of a feature complete build target. ie "Here, support this, ktnx"

That's just Windows. There is no special Proton build target, it's just Windows.

I should have said test target. "Windows" is not a single thing either. Windows 8, 10 (+variants), 7 (in some cases still), GPU types + drivers. Whatever the developer chooses to support, these must all get tested, and more importantly, built from the ground up to not include things that do not work on their chosen supported platforms.

I'm saying if Valve can provide a feature complete Proton that they support, then they could maybe talk some developers into adding this to their list of supported targets.

Anyway, I'm not a moron, Liam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

When Proton does get marketed to developers it will be in the form of a feature complete build target. ie "Here, support this, ktnx"

As for market share etc. Disturbing as it is, Steam China will likely push up the Linux share over time more than the rest of the world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: gojulI still got frequent crashes on Death Stranding w/ Proton 5.13-5 and NVidia driver 460.39 under Debian stable. Anyone with the same issues ? (and yes re-validating files quite often does not fix it)

I'm on Proton Experimental with that but will switch over and play a bit later today to see if it crashes. I'm on Manjaro / NVidia and I've actually never had that game crash on me. I'm even running ReShade on top of it.

I have found some games are crashy in certain screen modes. Like some will hate Fullscreen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This depresses me.

I don't begrudge Stadia for existing. Sure, exist, chew up all the bandwidth you want. (seriously, it's ecological disaster levels of bandwidth) But it bothers me that in all likelihood, precisely 0 of these games will see a native Linux release anywhere else.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

$4 million does not seem like a lot of money to even bother suing over. Are we sure this is not a desperate company in financial trouble with over-inflated stock value?

View this comment - View article - View full comments