Quoting: 3zekielI indeed ignored the closed source driver, as it seems to have its support limited to a few distro. And it is not the target for games and so on.
Also, there is still no full support in the "normal" driver for quite a few features, see Joshua Ashton's closing words in his blog about RTX and about supporting a driver no one cares about. I did rephrase it, but this is not me saying it in the first place. Joshua Ashton [External Link]

AMDVLK and AMDGPU-Pro are pretty much worthless as targets for developers. Waiting between 3-months and half a year for a release with new fixes/features is a complete joke for anyone wanting to ship a game or really anything.

As for the Mesa/Kernel issue not being only for AMD, it might be, but the only competitor in x86 space making use of open source driver for their (i)GPUs actually has a much better track record (except for one obscure dGPU that no one really cares about and was more of a warm up). So I don't really get your point. Supporting your products so as to release code and merge it sufficiently ahead of release is quite possible, and again, AMD has the manpower/money/ressources/smart enough people to do just that. It is just not their priority / not worth enough for them. So is life.

You're mixing a lot of stuff here.

First of all, Joshua is talking about the release of official RT support for Vulkan and what has pissed him off is how AMD took around 5 extra months to release these extension on Linux while on Windows it was released the same day. Is this is a pitty? yes. Is this something that Linux users will complain? well, probably if they want to develop RT apps or if the really love to play Quake 2 they will... just like many Nvidia users has been complaining because they can't use wayland with their GPU.

And regarding AMD proprietary drivers, it's true that they only support SUSE, RHEL/CentOS and Ubuntu but want no one takes in account is that shipped on them you have the source code for AMDGPU module. So, if you want to, you can install/adapt to you system what you need, just like many other distros have to do with Nvidia drivers dkms (if they can).

TL;DR: If for missing feature we want to talk we can do the same with both companies. But we can agree that not being able to boot with a new AMD GPU is something that doesn't happen since long ago as is just a bias that never goes away.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekielSo yeah, AMD's behavior does bother me. Actually, compared to what I hear from many persons, AMD support is in many way not that great. You often have to wait for months before new GPUs are supported (as in booting)...

Sorry, but that's BS. All AMD release in the last 3 or 4 years had a proprietary driver release on Linux the same day they hardware was released. And if your point is that kernel and Mesa version releases doesn't sync with the hardware release, I can tell you that this issue is not isolated to AMD.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasNow of course it is up to the company how they want to handle fan projects. Some would even endorse and welcome them, while others would viciously fight anything remotely touching their IP. There is a huge spectrum of how this could be handled, and it's not always clear what the best strategy is.

But the discussion here would be if creating an engine from scratch that is compatible with the IP protected engine is legal or not. If re3 doesn't use a line of code extracted from the original binaries, I find difficult to believe that this project violates any IP at all. I mean, if this would be illegal then wine, freedos and many other OS "emulators" would be illegal as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddick

Quoting: kuhpunktWhat extra 30%?!

Read article top to bottom. They loose some money because obviously they can't charge too much more, so generally devs take a slight hit in the profits in order to be competitive with other games of similar type.

There are many examples were they can charge the exact same money they do on Steam or even less. For example: on kickstarter they usually give you a Steam key when the project meets their budget goals, and from there they are definitely not forced to use the "same price as in Steam" by the simple fact that the game is most of the times not even published as early access or "coming soon". I don't know, for me it looks like that Steam is quite flexible in regards of how you can sell your games even before you publish it.

There is a lot of noise on each statement we get. At this point we really need the documents that have the statement that each part claims.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestwow everyone here is a game developing expert and a marketing expert and a legal expert!
I wonder where do you all find the time to play games?

You created a template, don't you?

I find weird that in the first article the lawsuit seemed to be more focused on the market position and the cut that Steam takes from devs. But now, in this PR like response, it seems that the problem is an about extortion related to their market position. At this point I think it will be better that Valve releases to the public their price policy and anyone that was threatened by Steam regarding prices in other stores publish that threat (if possible).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsWhich version of Mesa has the fix for Metro Exodus?

Seems that it was only merged to 21.1.0:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/commits/mesa-21.1.0?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=Fix+memory+leak [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestThis has gone off topic in the end, but part of GOG is that games are DRM free, and that they're standalone. They're not supposed to require the client, making the client optional, and not bare minimum on GOG. Though of course you might want it, which is obviously personal preference for an individual.

It's about having similar features as well. And this is import for our OS, as if you want let your OS be more popular you need to have the same features for whoever want to switch. You can see a similar logic from some GOG users that created a black list of devs when they do not get the same features on GOG as in Steam for a game.

Quoting: TheRiddickI find it hilarious people are comparing digital copies of games to physical goods in the retail markets like its Apples to Apples comparison. Its just not, too many people clueless about software development and cost/time associated.

To be fair, you can get the same conclusion when you see people saying "30% is way too much" when we don't have access to the operating costs of Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RoosterI would say actually owning the games you buy is quite the groundbreaking feature in this day and age.

That's why I mentioned itch.io and GOG as an exception.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe very article you link to also has Epic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost. Yes, no profit from that alone. So increase it to 15%. Now you've got profit (3% is a very good profit margin as every trader on this planet will tell you) and still only take half of what Valve takes.
Hell, take 20%. Now your profit margin is in the "investors' wet dream" area and STILL 1/3rd less than Valve's...

Weird how that goes, huh?

Please, take a look on the numbers. They're leveraging their store with Fortnite, the profit they get from selling third party games is nowhere near to cover their store expenses.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNot anymore, though. So the same cut you imply was not enough now suddenly is.
Seems to me they just didn't know how to run a business in their field and then wisened up a bit, cutting costs.
Besides, don't forget that Valve also gets their share of MTX from games, which is a large amount. GOG doesn't, afaik.
Also don't forget about DLCs, which often enough mean practically 0 additional cost for the storefront (DLCs tend to be tiny and they share the same infrastructure as the main game).

And finally, GOG is simply MUCH smaller than Steam.
Costs scale inversely to size - probably in all fields, but especially when it comes to IT infrastructure. Based on that alone, Steam could affort a smaller cut than GOG.

As far I know, GOG cut is still the same. It's fun to see that GOG store can ask for more as they are small but, at the same time, 12%, 15% or 20% should be the gold number to follow (with 20% being actually a possible cut for Steam as well) as it should cover all the expenses.

I think that making every complain so focused in this 30% cut number is what definitely makes all this discussion just a mere mirror of Epic BS. There is only one job that Epic has to do in order to be a better store than Steam, and it's just to make a better platform that Steam. The problem is that they don't want to, they just want to have a guerrilla war with Steam, not giving any benefit to us, the users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI performed heresy and read some of the arguments laid out in the lawsuit file, combined with various discussions the last time this cropped up, and from additional discussions in years past when the whole Greenlight thing started.

Whatever you did was mere speculations. As I mentioned several times, Valve isn't a public company so we don't have their numbers. But we have Epic numbers, so you can see how profitable it's a 12% cut.

Quoting: GuestAnd yes, Steam has curators, my very point being that this wasn't Valve doing anything. This is Valve getting others to do the work of quality control and have the community self govern.

Valve creating a feature were game journalists can freely share reviews of games of the platform isn't doing something for you? What's your point here? That Valve should contract reviewers for the platform?

View this comment - View article - View full comments