Quoting: TeodosioI would like to see a new game from Valve, released on GNU/Linux only.

Better solution is Linux nativ exlusive, but with WSL as linux compatibility layer on windows :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: DorritWhy do you guys think they went with Arch? Is it for not needing to eventually reinstall a new OS version?

They don't trust canonical after their initial plans to drop 32bit i guess. Arch begun emerging in Valve projects after that (futex), if i remember correctly.

Canonical planning to drop 32bit support with Ubuntu 19.10 onwards

Valve looking to drop support for Ubuntu 19.10 and up due to Canonical's 32bit decision (updated)

They weren't using Ubuntu for SteamOS though, but Debian (stable).

Ok, my mistake.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DorritWhy do you guys think they went with Arch? Is it for not needing to eventually reinstall a new OS version?

They don't trust canonical after their initial plans to drop 32bit i guess. Arch begun emerging in Valve projects after that (futex), if i remember correctly.

Canonical planning to drop 32bit support with Ubuntu 19.10 onwards

Valve looking to drop support for Ubuntu 19.10 and up due to Canonical's 32bit decision (updated)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: ArtenEvery new chip design for new proces node is more expensive with every generation of process node and there is no silver bullet like machine learning - because machine learning slowly moving to specialized hardware and so they have they own chips. We need make more GPUs and ethereum do this job for us. Righ now, there is shortage, because eth price fluctuation, but that is only short term problem. But without is limiting development of GPUs for PC, so we can in the end be tied to professional segment and game consoles chips as high-end and integrated GPU as low-end and nothink in-between.

What kind of corporate welfare are we planning here? GPU manufacturers ought to make decent products that meet the demand. There is, and always has been, demand for mid-tier GPUs. They aren't even prohibitively expensive to make, it's an industry standard practice to make mid-tier and low-end products by scrounging together half-broken chips from higher tiers and disabling the broken bits. I don't see the logical connection from Ethereum miners to mid-tier GPU availability, and even if such a connection did exist, I don't think subsidizing chip manufacturers by having their products be bought in massive volumes for the purpose of crunching useless numbers and gathering dust in some warehouse next to a newly reopened coal power plant that will power said warehouse is the way to do it.

What corporate welfare? Crypto is free market. There is no welfare here.

RTX 3060 die 276mm^2, RTX 3070 die 392.5mm^2, RTX 3080 die 628.4mm^2. So its clearly different chip.
Link with ethereum is mining cards. NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses TU116 (GTX 1660), NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses TU106 (RTX 2060). And they use damaged chips, which are not usable for GPU.

About what imaginary coal power plant do you talk? I know only about one powerplant which has been rebuilded from coal to gas, so there is no reopened coal powerplant. If you read leftist propaganda in arstechnica, pleas read whole article, not only misleading title.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: ArtenSo, actual rising cost of development for every process nodes will be on the shoulders of the players. End of desktop gaming and hardware diversity is coming.

Wat?

The cryptocurrency market hasn't been the driving factor behind process nodes ever, mining gains have been a byproduct of the increased compute that can be put to work for actually useful purposes. You may have heard of this little thing called machine learning, which seems to be selling a fair amount of GPUs and lately specialized hardware (so I guess hardware diversity will continue, who knew!). Apparently they can also accomplish stuff other than just burn watt-hours, so that's kinda cool.

Also, smaller nodes are running into a problem of diminishing returns anyway, crypto or no crypto. Laws of physics are tough to break, so future performance gains will come from architecture, both in terms of hardware and software. And both still have a fair amount to give for the purposes of desktop gaming. So I just don't find the doomer vision of desktop gaming dying because Ethereum won't be providing nonsense crypto-puzzles for people to solve very convincing. I'd say it's more likely that desktop gaming will thrive if some gamers can actually get their hands on some damn GPUs.

When i say it's driving force behind process nodes development? My point is chip development [External Link] for new proces node. Every new chip design for new proces node is more expensive with every generation of process node and there is no silver bullet like machine learning - because machine learning slowly moving to specialized hardware and so they have they own chips. We need make more GPUs and ethereum do this job for us. Righ now, there is shortage, because eth price fluctuation, but that is only short term problem.
But without is limiting development of GPUs for PC, so we can in the end be tied to professional segment and game consoles chips as high-end and integrated GPU as low-end and nothink in-between.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, actual rising cost of development for every process nodes will be on the shoulders of the players. End of desktop gaming and hardware diversity is coming.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Final Fantasy XV
Stellaris

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: s8as8a

Quoting: Interknet

Quoting: s8as8aFor what it's worth, the 30% (or any percentage) cut doesn't seem bad to me (even if they didn't "give back" anything to the community, but in our case, they do, and a lot). What does seem bad to me is the "clauses Valve have that prevent developers selling at cheaper prices on other stores" (because that improperly reduces competition among stores, and that likely is the point).

That sounds like a myth honestly. I'm sure I've seen games available elsewhere for less many times.

Maybe they were violating Valve's license agreement? To be honest, I'm not sure if that's true either, but what I meant was that if it is, I'm against that.

After reading this article [External Link] i think that limit mostly for stores reselling steam keys and in that case i fully support that limit. It's price which developers pay for nearly unlimited free key generation. Without limit is possible this: You release game on steam for 30USD, you generate 10 000 of steam keys and sell it on humble bundle for 10USD. Everyone download it from steam, but nobody buy it on steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tonR

Quoting: ArtenIf they do it, they do it with source 2 engine. Has source 2 engine capabilities for sim racing games?

Sorry for the late reply.

Yes Source 2 might not be suitable for Sim racing. But, it doesn't mean Valve workforce only know how-to on one engine only. Campo Santo made their games on Unity. Valve itself do making VR demo games (The Lab excl. Robot Repair) in Unity. Valve proved they can and willingly use other product/ecosystem if needed.

Also, Gabe Newell himself is a team owner of professional racing team named "The Heart of Racing"! He knows the business in motorsport. So, it is shame if Valve not capitalized their own Chief knowledge and expertise to make one hell, real and best Sim racing on market.

The Lab is developed in time before they did Source 2 VR capable and it is probably mostly discovering possibilities of VR began with Alyx.
Second thing is, The Lab did not have linux build, i think its mostly because to work on other company engine...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: TheRiddick

Quoting: RoosterGOG dont heve linux build of their own Galaxy!

GOG support Linux packaging system, and categories. Its only their Galaxy Client that's not supported yet, but open-source has helped that along a little bit.

Client is part of bare minimum. If you developing game with use of GOG Galaxy API for somethink, you are discouraged from release linux build because you can release only crippled version of game.
To be honest, i buy on gog some realy old games which i played as young. But for something newer i want atleast client. But preferably also proton integration. Valve has done most of the work for them and may as well start contributing to it themselves.

This 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.

Game is not requere galaxy for running, but it can use galaxy client for matchmaking. Multiplayer game without matchmaking is crippled even if you can run it without client and you can play it in LAN mode...

View this comment - View article - View full comments