Quoting: Numeric

Quoting: TheSHEEEPFor desktops, I'm not sure about the use case.

Even without immutability, most big distros are already "it just works" - and in addition also offer more possibility to customize.

What it would offer is more security to not accidentally mess up your system, I'd wager.
But even then, that's what rollbacks are for, so... yeah, I'm really not sure about the use case on normal desktop.

The normal use case for immutability on the desktop, is the same reason immutability is the default on smartphones. I truly believe that the average human sees technology (in all forms) akin to that of an appliance or automobile. You push a button, engage with the controls, and it generates the expected response near every time. After providing voluntarily community IT support for many years, this impression is almost carved in stone within me.

At the core of it, the people I work with want to know very little about their PC (for a variety of reasons). Majority never even change the desktop wallpaper. They push the power button, then expect everything to work and be up to date. The younger ones do some customization, but defaults are king. Their systems take care of themselves and manual interaction is only performed when forced by system prompts. Linux can not enter this space without providing that which the current offerings have, which is an appliance-like nature by default. Automatic stable atomic updates, simple program installation, access to the majority of modern applications, and quick recoverability from technological hiccups are all needed to be baked in the operating system. Due to the functional structure of Linux and its FOSS subsystems, I truly respect the struggle that Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite, SteamOS, MicroOS Aeon, and now Ubuntu development teams are engaged in to make this experience come to light.

Those reading here on GamingOnLinux are near guaranteed to not be the category of people I have described above. Hopefully, the Linux community at large can grow to be more understanding of the need for immutable desktop operating system. Without a doubt, there is a commercial interest from the these Linux companies, but should we not be supportive all the same for getting FOSS into the hands of people who are currently being exploited by non-open systems? Give this time, let's not let snaps vs ostree vs native be the focus, these things sort themselves out. While Fedora Kinoite may be my current go-to recommendation for new Linux users, I am very curiosity to see how things play out on the snap front.

TL:DR Immutable OSes need to come for the masses to engage with Linux and FOSS at a system level. Average people have quite a different perspective on computers than tech-understanding users like the GamingOnLinux readership. On both the commercial and humanitarian fronts, Immutable OSes provide benefits and the established Linux community should do it best to support these efforts (or at the very least not publicly disparage the good that comes form it).

Edit: To clarify, my last sentence was not implying that your specific comment was disparaging. Rather it was direct to the generic Linux user/commentator that might be inflamed by immutables.

So, an entry level Linux drug, then?

I can get on board with that :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For desktops, I'm not sure about the use case.

Even without immutability, most big distros are already "it just works" - and in addition also offer more possibility to customize.

What it would offer is more security to not accidentally mess up your system, I'd wager.
But even then, that's what rollbacks are for, so... yeah, I'm really not sure about the use case on normal desktop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou know, my background is in English literature. I've read starting from Beowulf, through Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, Swift, the Romantics and through to T.S. Eliot and such. It is my considered opinion that the greatest work of literature of the 20th century . . . has trolls in it.

My dude.... you are reading books that are not a 1-to-1 portrayal of historical facts.
What a childish thing to do!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI think TheSHEEEP is being a bit over the top in claiming they're automatically going to be rubbish.

I never said that.
I think there are some great purely historical games out there.
And I also think CA's more historical ones are pretty good.

What I did say is that they are going to get boring a lot faster than fantasy ones due to the limitations of sticking to history, but I'm not sure if that has much to do with overall quality.

It's just a simple fact that they aren't doing as well as fantasy ones because the audience that tends to favor that stick-strictly-to-history isn't big enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Deleted_UserI can't understand where you got these statements from. Neither CA (which wouldn't include Feral sales) nor SEGA released any relyable numbers on the sales of the titles.

Steam reviews provide all you need for a good ballpark estimate of sales.
The amount of reviews for games is at something around 0.5-1% (some very good recent titles have even gone up to 1/60 and indies regularly get a lot more).
From that you get the rough sales numbers.

3K did indeed not sell badly. Afaik, it was the fastest selling title CA ever made?
But you need to look at what really rakes in the cash for games like that over time: DLC. And those need concurrent player numbers.

Now, I don't know if any of CA's games made them a net loss - in fact I doubt it, they are much better run as a company than they are as developers - but it is very clear from player numbers alone which titles did well and which ones did not.
3K basically dropped down to around 5K players just a few months after launch - and still sits there. With DLCs not having made much of a dent.
And the other historical titles fared much worse (though again, hard to say what kind of EGS deals were made for Troy). Troy and Thrones Of Brittannia sit at like 300 people playing.

Meanwhile, WH3 - despite a launch so terrible it will be remembered forever as a complete fumble - sits rather comfortably at around 25k players a year after launch. With DLCs definitely making a dent.
So there really can't be much of a discussion if fantasy-themed games are doing better than historical ones.

But I must admit, to my surprise the older historical titles are still doing surprisingly well, with player numbers in the 2k region:
https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=total+war [External Link]
I did NOT expect especially Empire to still have such a stable player base. Despite spending a lot of time in TW communities, I've never encountered anyone talking about Empire.

So, who knows. Maybe they can afford to just play the long game here with the historical titles after all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Deleted_UserFact is, that the "accurate history Total War" community haven't got a proper game since years. Warhammer aside, both 3 Kingdoms and Troy are fantasy adaptions in some way - so i think it would be fair to get a "pure historical" TW.

Yes.
Because that community is too small for CA to focus on.
3K had a historical mode, and other than the "super generals" the normal mode was as historical as you can get with that period. Even the more strange units (like some artillery) actually existed, albeit maybe more as prototypes than actual battlefield use.
Anyway, it didn't do well, and boy did they drop that one like a hot potato.

Troy was a historical (well, mostly) game before they added the mythical creatures.
It didn't do well (EGS cash paid for that game).
Attila was historical.
It didn't do well.
Thrones Of Brittannia?
Didn't do well.
Rome Remastered?
Didn't do well - although I'm certain they invested A LOT less resources into it than into any of the Warhammer ones. Hard to say if this one flopped (judging by review & player numbers) or was never meant to be very successful.
Before that, my memory fails me, but I do remember Empire failing pretty badly.
Basically, they tried again and again and again to cater to the more historically focused crowd, and it didn't pay off for them - while even their completely f*cked up WH2 & 3 releases raked in the money.
The last big success in the historical sector for CA must've been Medieval 2? 2007? And I'd argue that was largely due to (fantasy themed :wink:) mods.

The point is, this isn't a question of fairness.
It's a business decision.
And the historical accuracy fans are just a very small group, which is why major companies avoid them and they are mostly served by small and/or indie devs, such as many Slytherine titles, etc. Games that look more like Excel than Total War, unfortunately.

I'm not saying there will never be a good purely historical game in a Total War style, but I very strongly doubt that CA will be the ones to deliver it, they focus on where they smell the cash for their AA-AAA productions. At this point I also doubt they even have the right "history buff/excited for history" people to pull it off to begin with.
I'd put my money on some indie developer eventually filling that particular gap of large scale real-time battles in a historical setting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestDisgusting. I hope they don't add monsters and mythology. That ruined troy for me, since I want to play a real historical general and relive an alternate history where the particular civilization survives the odds.

Maybe they won't do that.
And then the game will die as quickly as 3K did...
Or maybe this is meant to be a quick-ish cash-grab for them like Troy was.

The LARP that you want is much better served with 4X games of the Paradox kind.
Those where you never really enter the battlefield.
Or something like AoE that is "mostly" historical, but the small unit size enables a very different kind of gameplay.
But in the Total War style of gameplay, being restricted to historical units only is just plain boring. Because there isn't much you can do wrong, there isn't much you can do right, either.
There just aren't enough variables to keep the gameplay interesting - otherwise you'd still see people playing it.
There's also the issue of units looking identical at a glance (from a distance a guy with a sword looks pretty much the same as one with a spear/shield/zweihander/etc) - now a big-ass troll, that one always sticks out and helps readability on the battlefield.

Quoting: GuestPlaying with monsters is just childish rather than the chess game its meant to be.

Do you ever listen to yourself or do you just blurt stuff out, fire-and-forget mode?
"My historical make-believe is so much less childish than the make-believe with fantasy creatures"
"RPS combat is like chess, really, huehuehue *sips wine, tips fedora*"
Dear lord :grin: :grin: :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Indeed.

On Pharaoh itself...
Usually, historical games are not really my cup of tea, but with Troy they eventually added mythical creatures and people rightfully loved that addition.

Sticking to historical units just limits possibilities so much compared to when you have magic + creatures available.
There's only so much you can do with basic archers, swordsmen, pikemen and cavalry. And that gets old quickly in this kind of game.

Three Kingdoms was a really good game (in many regards better than WH3), but the limited unit variety still meant the game died a very quick death through players stopping to play, as all factions were basically identical except for cosmetics.

From the description, it sounds to me like this could be another Three Kingdoms - but I'm really curious if or how they want to spice it up.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've been playing WH3 (and 2 before) through Proton anyway.

Quite frankly, the Feral port isn't terrible, but it tends to come months after an update, and then not even include the latest patches for that update. I doubt Feral is to blame for this, most likely CA is giving them access way too late.
Anyway, all of that means it is borderline impossible to play the game with mods, or only for a very short time until the mods become incompatible (since they need to be up-to-date with the main game).

And since mods are the lifeline to make up for CA's incompetence in fixing their own bugs and balancing their own game, Proton is the way to go for their games anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TcheyMy issue with these games is, i find it fun to play with total strangers randomly logged in, and at the same time i really hate playing with people yelling in the mics, panicking, swearing etc. I’ve always been a very calm and quite player, never yell or stress or throw my mouse over the desk or anything like that. For years i was still typing on keyboard, players muted, while "everyone else" was already on mics...

I find that it depends very much on the kind of game.
With a more cooperative game like Deep Rock Galactic, people tend to be very chill, so voice is fine. I'd assume the same here, to be honest. Everyone is just doing their part :tongue:

But with competitive games like PUBG, Fortnite and all those... hell no! Bunch of amped up tryhards just being pissed half of the time. I don't need that in my ears.

Of course, I almost never play games of the second category anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments