Quoting: BrisseA problem with the recommendations presented by the ML feature "Interactive Recommender" is that some of my best gaming experiences have been from short and focused interactive experiences which didn't take as much time to go through as some of my top games by hours played. Seems these games are not treated fairly by this algorithm. The recommendations makes sense in comparison to my most played games, but most hours played does not always mean most compelling game, and some of those most played games I'm actually done with and I'm burned out on those genres.

I think a partial solution could be to look at the average playtime for the entire user-base for a game, and then see how my time compares to that of the average user. If I spent more time than average, then I probably found it compelling. Some games are intentionally short, others can be huge time sinks. By looking at a ratio compared to an average instead of absolute playtime we can ensure the former category isn't treated as unfairly as it currently seems to be.

Yeah, using time played as a metric for preference is deeply flawed. But I don't think looking at averages instead is a solution, for some of the same reasons: maybe you put more hours than average, but it doesn't mean the experience is better than that from another game where you put less hours than average.

Ultimately, the ideal metric is asking users "do you want more games like this or not".

Edit: it looks like they already normalize for time played like you suggested.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I quite like the 6-second trailers. Better than regular videos, that I never watch, and they could make for an interesting discovery queue or something (though I would like to have some text to help as well).

The machine learning part is... not ideal. I have the opinion that, if my personal data is going to be used to generate recommendations I should be the one controlling that. Which means it should run locally, with no one else having my data, and I should be able to change the parameters as I wish - granularly remove any data I don't want to be used, filter what games can be recommended (by price, OS, DRM and etc), and so on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hmm, the message was a bit unclear. Do I need to redeem my key before it is released in order to get the update? I was waiting until they actually released something that worked on Linux before getting it.

I guess I'll do it anyway, not much point in waiting now that we have a set date.

And by this point, my expectations for inXile are low enough that even this exceeds them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: eldakingI will argue that DRM are only the software restrictions that enforce this policy. If you are technically able to make back-ups, but are not allowed to do it by an agreement, it is not DRM.

It's not DRM from the standpoint of "breaking measures" i.e. violating anti-circumvention. But it's DRM from the standpoint of placing a restriction. For the lack of better term, DRM-free implies no such restrictions, and that means legal ways of backing up your purchases, not ones that violate the terms of use, while technically not breaking any software barriers. I.e. saying that game is DRM-free but to back it up you need to violate the TOS is not helpful. I don't call such stores DRM-free.

Yeah, it is not helpful at all. But I think it is an important distinction for several reasons. The TOS may not be legally binding in some jurisdictions, or this part might be contested in court, or just the law could change. But once you put DRM to enforce the TOS, it doesn't matter if you have the legal right anymore, and it becomes much more difficult to change or contest. You need both legal means and a technical way of circumventing the protection. If DRM is Digital Restrictions Management (or Rights, if you prefer), the TOS is just the Restrictions being managed digitally (or not being, in the case of DRM-free.

But it is a big pet peeve of mine: different TOS or EULAs are a big difference between various platforms, but people often dismiss it. "Just use this alternative, it is the same" - no it's not, this one has a binding arbitration clause and shares my data with advertisement partners and uses the law of this other country. (Not that I am knowledgeable enough to make perfectly informed choices, because those contracts are bullshit in many ways).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: scaineIt's literally renting vs owning.

No, DRM is about restrictions. I.e. whether you are restricted in your usage after the purchase or not. Steam requires you to use the client to install the game. I.e. they don't sanction backups according to their terms of usage (except for using their own backup method, which again involves their client and etc.).

Whether they enforce it or not is already secondary. DRM-free store should not stop you from legally making backups. And they provide downloadable packages for such use case. DRMed stores quite explicitly avoid that, because they don't want you to back anything up.

I will argue that DRM are only the software restrictions that enforce this policy. If you are technically able to make back-ups, but are not allowed to do it by an agreement, it is not DRM. For example: copy protection in a disk is DRM; a label telling "it's illegal to copy this disk" is not. A law that prevents you from uploading a video file or a DRM takedown aren't DRM; encrypted media extensions are DRM.

But no, it's not renting vs owning, not even figuratively. It is about enforcing restrictions through invasive means, regardless of whether it is either "rented or owned" (neither is technically correct).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Regarding the Steam DRM argument: if you can just copy the various game folders and the game works without requiring you to be logged into Steam, that's DRM free. You don't need an installer available if you can just copy and use the software. Even if you need to copy some libraries or files from the Steam client or something, so long as it is also possible that's ok.

If it prevents you from using the copy in another machine, or requires you to log in, or prevents you from making a working copy at all, or have a regional lock, then it is DRM.

If you can't download a new of the game after you downloaded it the first time, that is not DRM. The service of having an online back-up where you can download new copies is separate from the software itself. Or if you need an account to make the purchase and download the first copy.

And, strictly from the DRM point, it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not. It only matters that there aren't built in measures to restrict your use of the software - whether it is restricting legal or illegal actions is immaterial. I very much think that several of those copyright laws and contracts are bullshit, but the point of being DRM-free isn't to circumvent those.

So, Steam has truly DRM-free games. That isn't necessarily the point, of course; people can simply disagree with Steam's policies (including their offering of DRM for other games, but also many other things), or prefer features in GOG. It is just a different store. (Edit: regarding the use of steamcmd, having a more convenient/more user friendly method of installing/copying/making back-ups of DRM free games is also a possible motive to prefer the store, even if the alternative isn't DRM itself).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is just a PR disaster. He could just say "sorry, it would be too much work and because it is already DRM-free on Steam I have chosen to prioritize other things for now". He could even mention that the intersection of Linux and GOG users is even smaller than both, it is a point that makes sense.

But no need to be dismissive towards any users - neither with their motivation ("against mainstream just for the sake of it", this doesn't even make sense) or their value as customers ("no sales to be made"). No need to feel defensive when people ask for something - it is because they are interested, just answer politely. And don't attack people posting about it, of course. (I'm also not sure if it is a good practice to bash the quality of your own work, but honest self-deprecation is the least of the problems here).

You don't need to give people canned non-committal responses, but you do need some common sense when managing your professional social media. Like "don't antagonize people".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Really pretty and great soundtrack. Looks to be a bit on the short side for a visual novel, but I'm not sure whether that is good or bad - might be easier to finish it and get a fulfilling experience; it's been a while since I have gone through one of those big 40+ hour VNs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, one interesting thing from my perspective I would like to point out: as a dedicated fan of single player strategy games, the two games I'm interested in are also the two games that have native Linux builds. The other game that fits my interests (but that I didn't enjoy) is rated Platinum on ProtonDB.

The same goes for the vast, vast majority of the games I play (strategy, management, simulation, a few puzzles and the rare adventure/visual novel/rpg). With a few exceptions, gaming on Linux is already a solved problem for me. Steamplay already works well enough to fill the most conspicuous holes, performance is rarely a big concern, there is no anti-cheat, and the biggest games have native support.

I mean, of course there is space for improvement. But comparatively, Linux gaming varies a lot depending on genre and category. The real issue is with AAA action games and with multiplayer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Regarding "people wouldn't buy those anyway": having a game on your wishlist is free marketing for developers. You see that game every time you go into the wishlist (while you might not see it otherwise), get informed about sales and releases, and they get some data out of it. This is the equivalent of many people hitting the "ignore" button on the store: maybe they wouldn't all buy, but there is a lot less people seeing your game, so people that could be convinced won't see it anymore. For big games that people are sure to see anyway, or remember later, no big deal; for small games, this means a lot. People that added a game to the wishlist are already a bit more likely to buy the game, so the idea that none of the people that removed the games was ever going to buy any of them is a bit unlikely. And this is anomalous.

That said, I kind of like this sale. I think that rewarding people for playing some games instead of just for buying games (that end up never being played) or for playing a clicker is better. I think that the removal of trading cards and the economy involved is actually good - microtransactions with random drops of collectibles aren't the best thing for a store. Gifting games instead is a better solution, even if it is a lottery.

The team competition aspect could certainly be improved (but it is not horrible, just meaningless). The idea of having teams is intriguing, but in the end there is so little interaction with other people (and I'm not sure I'd like more) that it hardly matters. I think it would work better if instead they took games of the same genre and similar playerbases and put them to compete, for example.

View this comment - View article - View full comments