Nice update. Regarding the driver problems you mention, couldn't they be related to your Mesa version? Maybe the regressions are not related to the kernel.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzyAgreed. Useragent sniffing to decide whether to show content or an 'unsupported browser' message is terrible practice. Test whether the browser has the capabilities required, and if it does then show the content.

But is this the case for EVE online? Saying "We support this list of browsers" doesn't imply that they will not allow the game to run in others (they can be displaying a warning message).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

192 MB of ram for a PII was a huge amount. In fact, in the early 2000's we had a price spike because of the classic **ADD RANDOM CALAMITY** on ram factories. Probably a better contender for RH9 is WXP, as the memory usage also went quite up compared to W98.

By the way, do you have any bench for your games? Results for runs on Windows (98 & XP) and Linux (RH9 & RH7.3) would be great in order to compare performance on those early gaming days for Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: The_Aquabataye, the 9200 a really nice card it's when AMD took over and it started having good open source drivers I think.

AMD bought ATI around 2006 or 2005. In that era the flagship was the X850 or the X1950.

Quoting: HamishThere are also a few commercial games using SVGALib on Linux that will only provide full acceleration with 3dfx hardware. Still not enough to make me shell out hundreds on the dumpster computer though.

But those game works way better with a Voodoo card? I still think that there are better alternatives in the market that should give a way better Linux experience for that time period. For example, in my country I can find a Radeon 7000 for around 5 USD, which is definitely a better option than any 3DFX card available (in fact, for the price of one Voodoo card I can actually buy 4 to 5 old PCI/AGP GPUs).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Seems to crash on my system (it was working fine last time I played it). Anybody else with the same problem?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HamishCertainly an interesting option, if I can find my way past the 3dfx tax. :whistle:

It's pointless. The only "beauty" of a voodoo GPU in a build is glide support, but you can already get it with nglide (and it's probably the way to go on Linux).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EhvisIf only AMD could do something to the drivers to make it uninteresting for miners.

(sorry, couldn't resist :tongue: )

Yeah, and as mining limitations worked so well you get convinced that open source drivers aren't the way it's meant to be played.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: drlambgraphics tip: Turn off depth of field, motion blur, and chromatic aberration (and possible head shake!) for a much sharper looking game. This game is gorgeous, now only if it performed better with Vulkan on AMD...

What issues are you having with Vulkan? OpenGL and Vulkan works the same for me with AMD (~30-40 fps with everything in high).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYou are mixing different points here. We're talking about the store cut of 12%. With that low cut, Epic still nets a profit:
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1120441795010338816 [External Link]

Of course, if you also take all the other measures into account - the exclusivity deals and the free games - then yeah, I'm fully with you they most likely run at a net loss right now.
But those other growth measures are not the topic of discussion here.

Steam features are definitely part of the Store and definitely something that adds as infrastructure cost (you agree with this in your estimations). Whatever estimation Sweeney provides will probably be far from the reality by the simple fact that if they want to compete they must provide similar features, not to mention that the cash flow of their store is still low. So, if you consider that your cost estimations are correct you will agree with me that this type of statements [External Link] are BS (once again, FUD against Steam).

IMO, Epic is leveraging their position in the market with external investments, whatever they say will mostly end up being propaganda as I'm sure that if we get a balance sheet of EGS we will definitely see a shit-show in those numbers.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIs this the part where you pretend something didn't happen because you didn't see it happen?
Honestly, just set your search engine to present you results from before 2017 or so and look for discussions about the store owner cut. You'll find quite a few, and absolutely not only about Steam, but also about mobile app stores, consoles, etc.

Your claim was that Epic "created" this narrative in some kind of FUD approach. And that is just provably false.
What Epic did was bring this to way more people's attention, which is a service in itself and if that discussion is the only thing that remains of Epic's efforts, it'll still be at least something good.
Now, did they push this point in an attempt to discredit others and get people on their store? Probably. I couldn't care less about intentions. I care about results.

What I pretend is to know who are those that were "mad" against Steam fee before the Epic store release and all the drama they created (I would love to see game devs complains posted before 2017), which is what implied before. And BTW, my problem with your statement is that you used the news media cliche of "people says...". So, if want to bring up something that others mentioned, just name them.

And regarding the FUD, take this lawsuit as example. As was mentioned before, it was presented by users and not developers. Suspicious, doesn't it?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPKnowledge is often mistaken for arrogance by those who don't possess it, especially if it isn't sugarcoated, so I'll take that compliment, thank you.

Just because you don't understand where the numbers are coming from, doesn't mean I created them out of thin air. I think I dropped enough keywords by now for anyone to do their own research and I am under no obligation to hand you my own research and do the thinking for you. Nor do I care if you believe me or not, so I'm really not willing to go that extra mile.

An arrogant person will always think that they understand something when they don't. Keep that in mind.

Anyway, fortunately you did your research and hopefully, someone will believe on it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: x_wingBut mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market

Wrong, again.
You can see that they invest some of their profit into the gaming market. Which is undoubtedly more than others do, which is a great thing, especially for us.

Grammar games? Really? Please don't twist my words, with this I meant that as a customer I can see were the money goes with Valve (and as a Linux user, this is a strong argument). Unfortunately I cannot say the same with other stores.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf they didn't invest anything back, they'd end up with a similar share to Epic, about 12% for developing/maintaining their store infrastructure and all things related to it. Actually Epic nets a profit from even that, but they don't have as much stuff to maintain and their service is just straight worse, so let's just say 12% let's you be even if you are Valve.

How do you know that? If I have to guess, Epic is losing money right now. For each free copy they give they are probably forced to pay a fee to the publisher. Not to mention that the temporal exclusives aren't cheap. This strategies aren't new in the gaming market, many new comers always worked at loss in the first years.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPMore realistically, they invest maybe half of that or less into non-profitable endeavours, meaning they could easily ask for a 20% cut from everyone, still do everything they do now, and still be on top of it all.

"Wrong, again." There is now way you can get any number out of this as Valve isn't a public company. Unless you're Valve's accountant or a shareholder of Valve, this number are pure speculation (not to mention that you don't evaluate costs).

Quoting: TheSHEEEPLet's be honest, yes: You have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
I haven't read a single argument of yours that actually holds up upon inspection.
People have been bringing the same points against the 30% cut since way before Epic entered the picture, though Epic certainly lend the whole criticism much more publicity and credit.
You should do yourself a favor and stop now, before it gets too embarrassing.

Are you sure that my arguments don't holds up an inspection? Is kinda fun to read this when in this same answer I see that you're giving me some credit regarding the Epic participation. Also, I mentioned the advantages of Steam for many developers (with extra revenue sources), something that you may want to add to your revenue estimations. Regarding "People have been bringing the same points against the 30%" I probably should ask by whom? Before Epic drama, I never heard a complain about that cut (at least not for Steam).

You're really an arrogant person. You imply that I don't bring any valid argument and I have no idea of what I'm talking about when you keep creating numbers from nowhere in order to justify what could be the right fee of a Store. Not to mention that you try to show some advantages of fee reduction for customer when many showed you that Epic didn't bring any advantage for us. If you don't find any sense on my arguments it's probably related to the fact that you've decided to not read my answers. So yeah, just lie to yourself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments