I don't really care about Google, they aren't friends of Linux gaming at all. They put zero effort in helping desktop Linux gaming. But Valve seem to be interested. Why are they putting all the effort into Linux gaming stack? But all that is not helping if they don't complement it with marketing and whatever deals legacy publishers expect to make Linux releases. If Google could figure it out, Valve can as well.

Point is, I don't see anyone besides Valve even caring about it in the first place. Not in the way to be even interested in convincing those legacy publishers about anything Linux related. But Valve despite being interested aren't putting the effort in the needed place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So how hard is it for Valve to hire someone who will do the same analysis as Stadia is using? If Valve have money to invest in Linux gaming technology, they should have money to hire market analysts and those who can advise them on marketing strategy to deal with backwards thinking legacy publishers. So why aren't they doing it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Their reasons are likely messed up indeed. But I don't really care about their mess. I wonder more why no one is trying to address it with what they like - incentives. Like above, let Valve give them a better cut or something, if they release for desktop Linux. Don't they like more money?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Comandante Ñoñardohmm. I wonder if we gonna see one of there Linux ports on Steam...
If Valve reduce the regular 30% cut to only 5% cut, those Linux ports will be on Steam on day one.

Only if GabeN had the balls for this:
"If your game has a fully functional Linux version, instead of the regular 30%, We charge you only the 5%"

Yes, I wonder why Valve isn't putting more effort into convincing these publishers who now release for Stadia to release for Linux. Legacy publishers are too obsessed with platform politics, so they won't do anything until they'll think there is someone who is a steward or owner of the platform.

They simply don't get the concept of open platforms like Linux. Stadia owned by Google they get. Linux not owned by anyone they don't. And it doesn't matter that number of Linux users is way higher than number of Stadia users. It's clear that they don't care about size of the market as much as about trying to put the "platform" into their mental box they are used to.

Valve started that effort when they had Steam machines project, but then abandoned it. Steam Machines aren't necessary for it. It's enough for them to simply represent Linux gaming for those legacy publishers and like you said, give them a better cut or something if they release for Linux. So why aren't they doing it yet, despite investing a ton into the Linux gaming technology stack?

With all this work going into Stadia, it's much easier for Valve to convince these legacy publishers to reuse that work for desktop Linux releases.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Nothing from that is coming to desktop Linux so far. Legacy publishers are being themselves. Ubisoft is as disgusting as it was.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestEverytime you think they will never properly support anything open source they do.

Mostly when they don't care. When they do, good luck waiting for them to open anything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: melkemindUsing an A.I. to "approximate" them is meaningless to your eyes. If it looks right and runs faster on your machine, why would it matter?

It's not meaningless if it looks worse than image that's not approximated that way but at lower resolution. I'd prefer the second over the first. But once they stuff ASICs into your card for that purpose, even if you prefer that, it's too late - your GPU will have hardware that's useless for everything else and it's worse at everything else just to support that trick.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike(I don't know what that means, seems to be a US thing.)

"Koolaid" means, that marketing is trying to sell something inferior as much better than what it is and people get hyped and think it's really great and buy it in multitudes.

Quoting: EikeI don'T care too much about the technology. I prefer my renderings in real fullscreen, too. It's just that I don't see how the technology would affect me. neither negatively nor positively.

To clarify my point above. You are right, it's all about trade-offs. But the one Nvidia are pushing is a bad trade-off. Nothing comes for free, so in order to be able to upscale things with machine learning to get better (but not good) quality, they need to use space on the GPU die for dedicated hardware units (called ASICs [External Link] ) that perform that DLSS.

But guess what, GPU die is not infinite. It means you'll have less space for general purpose compute units. So your GPU will be weaker for other tasks. Is that upscaling trick so valuable to do that? Not in my opinion. But Nvidia uses that trick as a marketing tool to get an edge over competition, forcing everyone else either to follow this hyped and bad approach, or to ignore it, and then some will always complain "but you don't have feature XYZ!". That's what I don't like.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeSure, the feature is a compromise, but every computer rendering is compromise.

Yes, but the way Nvidia does it is not good technologically. However since they have more money / resources, they know that once they push this approach (adding more ASICs to the GPU), others will need to either follow it even if it's bad (cheap and wrong way to address quality) or they'll need to invest a lot more money in proper compute advancement. So for them it's a sneaky way to get an edge, but for the end user it's a bad deal.

You should think beyond koolaid logic here. And it's not really about open source vs closed source. It's about technology progress. Nvidia has a lot of power over the market now, and they push garbage approaches due to that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI don't understand you negativity. What are you fearing?

I don't like solutions that lower quality and waste GPU die space, while at the same time are sold as some kind of super cool feature. That's just what Nvidia does. They know that competition is already head to head with them in compute power, so they start resorting to tricks like "hey, look we can bump resolution more than competition and it won't be so horrible still". But for that, they stuff the card with ASICs just for those tricks. The alternative (proper approach) is continuing to increase compute power.

Basically to sum up. DLSS is a marketing and market manipulation tool, it's not a good technology.

View this comment - View article - View full comments