Quoting: subPlus less likely diverging code bases, release dates and support for cross play.

Yes, in house support is just better.

I think bigger game changer for the situation is not Wine/Proton, but Stadia. With Staida around, we can see more and more studios starting picking up Linux development. And why shouldn't they be doing it in house? Once they have in house expertise and want to release for normal Linux, then the same people could do it. I.e. they won't need to outsource.

In such landscape, for Feral it's better to refocus from porting and publishing to consulting studios on Linux development,

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Also, I don't think ACO takes full advantage of RDNA yet. It's still work in progress, so performance is going to improve.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To be honest, I prefer original studios to do the porting, this way there are no gatekeepers who decide where something is released - original owners can decide.

Once Linux is treated as a normal platform, there is no need for porting houses.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"We'll look into" sounds very much like CD Projekt Red answered about TW3 Linux support. It meant "we won't do it".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I was wondering when AI finally will be used in games more creatively. A good example of what can be done given enough processing power. The likes of Google Stadia can differentiate not in graphics and pushing framerate to the limits, but actually in meaningful AI that's too computationally intense for regular PCs.

One thing though that's noticeable here is lack of progression. Hand crafted game usually handles it a lot better. But that can be combined. For example make a game that has defined progression, but make AI handle behavior of NPCs and the world, making it a lot more dynamic than any current crop of RPGs and adventure games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsYes, which is why Phil Spencer is "right" in the business point of view for defending MS lock-in (even if it's bad for anyone else).

Now if we talk about Apple, I think they were stupid to come with an exclusive api without having a big base of developers already using it before.

Anti-competitive tricks is not the right way to do business. It's the dirty way. I.e. proper way is competition on merit. In fact, anti-competitive behavior should be prevented by proper anti-trust (competition laws), because it's damaging to the progress and market in general.

And yes, I agree Apple are even worse. They are one of the most disgusting examples of lock-in proponents today.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweYes, we do need to care. Same as we need to care about any application/game a lot of people use, that isn't available easily on Linux. Every single one is a barrier that can prevent people from sticking with Linux. We can make as many big steps on performance, ease of install and updating and so on - all junk unless what people want and regularly use is on Linux. Steps like this are important. Anyone who disagrees, frankly has their head firmly in a bubble.

As a Linux user, I actually find such examples damaging. I look at the IM situation globally, and it's not a Linux specific issue. E-mail managed to push through the federated approach, and only because it happened years ago, we are now lucky we can send e-mail from any server to any server.

IM is a horror story in comparison. Walled garden servers and services grow like mushrooms, and almost none of them can talk to each other. Attempts to advance federated approaches (XMPP and now Matrix) are met with total indifference from the greedy owners of the walled options.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Anyway, do we need to care about Teams? Just another proprietary, non federated, walled garden IM service, that's not solving but proliferating the problem of IM fragmentation. Matrix is much better approach.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsDirectX, Microsoft Office (and maybe a shady contract with Adobe) are still a great source of revenue for then. Opening any of this would be a great shoot in the foot for Windows and big loss of money from "gamers"/companies/designers, so don't expect then to support a multi platform project like Vulkan until DirectX (or Windows as we know today) become financially "irrelevant".

It's not really about the money (DirectX). It's about controlling the developers, i.e. mindshare. As long as developers are stuck with MS lock-in, it's costly for them to release anything for other platforms. I.e. it's not like MS will get less money if they would, but their competitors will get more benefits, and that they don't want. It's a dirty anti-competitive tactic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleIn the Steve Ballmer era, I'd have suggested someone to go check the temperature in hell, but these days, I am not even surprised anymore. The new management's strategy is a lot less Windows-centric.

Looks like Phil Spencer is still stuck in Ballmer's times though. He is your regular old nasty MS type, who sees lock-in as a glorified goal. Likely because of him, MS didn't support Vulkan initiative.

View this comment - View article - View full comments