- 0 Posts
- 129 Comments
Which part of my comment was denigrating indie devs? Indie games are great. Android gaming is currently not.
If I’m looking for a good non-mobile game, I don’t go looking in the mobile game store. I go looking on PSN or PC, where the focus is on the kind of game that wasn’t designed as a phone-first experience.
The fact that Android has some good traditional games or ports of indie gems isn’t something inherent to Android. The overwhelming majority of those games were on PC or console first.
Oh, there’s no doubt about that. I’m not disagreeing that Android has some good-looking games. The problem is that games like GRID Legends Mobile are the exception, not the rule.
The Switch is crap, yes.
The Play Store is also overwhelmingly crap, though.
If you exclude all of the mobile games from both stores, the Switch simply has a better catalog of games.
You’re comparing apples to oranges.
The mobile gaming market is leagues larger than every other market combined. That doesn’t mean the games are even remotely comparable to console games.
It’s an entirely different target audience. Mobile games are focused on quick sessions and design patterns designed to encourage spending money on microtransactions. Games made for the traditional gaming market are mostly designed for longer play sessions with more mechanically complex gameplay. I as well as many others prefer the latter.
Nintendo’s store is full of shovelware, but at least you’ll find more traditional games than just ports of indie hits. Or, buy a Steam Deck and enjoy something better than both.
The OP is really blowing smoke up Android’s ass when it comes to the quality of native Android games. Most “top” mobile games are freemium crap riddled with microtransactions.
What it does have, however, is emulators. Including one for the Switch itself. Paying $350 for decade-old hardware and $80 for games is just bad value compared to a $300 used S21 and $0 games.
5.6% of [respondents] users said they wouldn’t pre-order [on Epic] knowing it would influence exclusivity, 2.7% said they would.
They really brought in those big dollars with making Borderlands 3 a timed exclusive on Epic. A whole 9%. Meanwhile, 91.6% of respondents preferred Steam. Bravo, Randy. Bravo.
Disappointingly, 53.9% still would buy it on Steam if it influenced exclusivity going forward. Even if it is Steam—which has a record of providing better service than its competitors—exclusivity helps nobody.
GOG being pushed out of the market. They’re one of the only stores that actually give you ownership of your games, and they don’t have the same indomitable foothold that Steam does.
It would be all too easy for Microsoft to strangle one of their key markets by taking a loss on sales and offering publishers 150% sales price in exchange for exclusive distribution of 90s and 2000s era PC games or console ports.
Steam will end up pushed out of the market
This has been explicitly attempted 3 times already, and that really didn’t work out well for anybody who tried it.
Epic Games Store still resorts to bribing people with free games to keep their monthly active user numbers up, hemorrhaging money to attract users who are rarely interested in anything more than freebies.
EA and Ubisoft tried to forgo Steam releases in favor of their own stores and launchers in an attempt to keep 100% of the revenue. They eventually relented, releasing their games on Steam again. Even Blizzard joined in, adding Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2 to Steam.
And Microsoft’s attempt to dethrone Steam by releasing games through the Windows app store just ended up with Valve funneling considerable resources into helping Linux and WINE become a viable alternative to Windows for gaming.
Unless Valve enshittifies or legal shenanigans ensue, they’re pretty unlikely to be pushed out of the market. No single game or game series is good enough to capture the entire market of Steam users and permanently drive them to alternative platforms. On top of that, Steam has a huge following of users who are loyal to the company, which is both insane and insanely hard to compete against.
or they will also become Streaming Platforms
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t see it happening, though. Valve makes money hand over fist from digital sales alone, and they have more to lose in pissing off their customers by selling subscriptions than they have to gain by selling subscriptions.
I am concerned about GOG and PC hardware prices, though.
To be fair to Ubisoft, the newest Prince of Persia game was a great metroidvania game.
To be fair-er to Ubisoft, they can go fuck themselves for closing down the studio that made said game only a few months later.
They can make good games. They just clearly would rather rehash the same tired formula that they’ve been running with for the past decade while unreasonably expecting to make more money each time.
Buddy, quit while you’re ahead not too far behind. You’re just proving what @[email protected] said: you don’t understand the difference between patents, copyright, and trademarks.
Another great post as usual!
For people interested in what’s been going on with Limited Run, here’s a 90-minute video that goes into a lot of detail about the sketchy stuff they did before this latest controversy:
Emulation is legal
Unfortunately, it’s not that straightforward anymore. Emulation of modern consoles exists in a legal gray area that may or may not be illegal under the DMCA.
With something like the Switch, the ROMs are encrypted in a way that they can only be unencrypted with keys that are derived from data baked into the console itself. Yuzu for example is still protected as an emulator for some hardware/software platform, but it wouldn’t be able to run retail games without being able to decrypt the ROMs.
And that’s kind of the problem. Creating tools for preservation and interoperability is permitted by the DMCA, but tools that are made in part or whole to bypass DRM measures is explicitly not. That conflict hasn’t been tested in court either, so the first ruling is going to be the one that sets the precedent.
This is my problem with your argument, you’re saying that because of piracy they’re entitled to crack down on emulation.
My argument isnt that they’re entitled to crack down on emulation because of piracy. My argument is that people blatantly and publicly using emulators to play pirated, unreleased games emboldens Nintendo.
I believe Nintendo isn’t willing to test that gray area in court without having something to support their anti-emulation position. What they want to do is bully devs into settling because it’s a low-risk way to kill development on the emulator without opening up that can of worms that could make Switch emulators unambiguously legal. But, the more evidence Nintendo gets to support their argument, the more confident they become in thinking they would end up winning if they don’t get that settlement.
Keep in mind that when they did finally go after Yuzu’s devs, they went after them for creating software to circumvent the Switch’s DRM (that gray area I mentioned) and not for creating an emulator. If they were actually confident in thinking the legal answer to “is an emulator that decrypts ROMs illegal” was “yes,” they would’ve just went after Yuzu a long time ago instead of waiting 7 years into the console lifestyle.
Don’t get me wrong: Nintendo deserves no sympathy here. They could do many things to make their games more accessible, but they chose not to.
That’s not to say asshats like this deserves any either, though. The homebrew community and emulator developers step in to make Switch software interoperable, and they end up being the ones getting screwed over by both Nintendo and the people who provoked Nintendo.
I don’t normally victim-blame, but streaming an unreleased game is really asking for it.
It’s one thing to pirate a game for yourself. That’s just called being poor or being someone who doesn’t believe in copyright. The only party who can argue they’re being harmed is the developer, who may or may not have received a sale otherwise.
It’s another thing to pirate an unreleased game and stream it for others. If you do that and receive ad revenue or donations, you’re profiting off of someone else’s work. Not only that, but you’re also harming the console modding community by incentivizing the publisher to go after homebrew developers and emulator developers. It wasn’t a coincidence that shortly after some asshat streamed an unreleased Zelda game being played on Yuzu, Nintendo decided to finally come down on the emulator with an iron fist.
In conclusion, between pirating a game to enjoy yourself and pirating a game to play on a for-profit streaming platform, one of those two things is morally gray and the other is someone being a selfish fuck.
my favorite are 3rd person rpg with exploration as an important element in learning about the lore/story
Not PC exclusive, but if you haven’t played Baldur’s Gate 3 yet, it might be something you would enjoy. It’s literally Dungeons & Dragons, and it’s not going to guide you through every little piece of content. You can miss something on one playthrough and discover it completely by chance on your next one.
Valve wins by doing nothing… it’s a tale as old as time.
Steam’s market share is a huge factor in why their competition never succeeds, but it’s hardly the only reason. Steam is a whole platform, not just a launcher or storefront. And they’re also cognizant that the consumers are not just a revenue source to be milked, but actually long-term customers whose loyalty is important.
It really shouldn’t be a surprise that when you enter an established market, you’re not going to accomplish shit by providing a lesser service while simultaneously treating the consumer worse.
Epic Games is also a private company… and they’re the posterchild for “fuck the consumer, we want a monopoly.”
It might have something to do with Epic being partly owned by Tencent and Disney, but it more likely comes down to the philosophies of their CEOs. Gabe came from a corporate shithole and runs with the diametrically-opposed view that good service = loyal customers = profit. Sweeney, not so much.
And the vast majority of the English-language corpus available will reflect Western, imperial core liberal politics.
Oh, I’m sure that isn’t going to be a problem for their goals. They can always overrepresent training data from 2016-2020 and 2024-2028 to add some balance to the model’s political compass. /s
Sorry, yeah. Bookworm. I’m terrible at remembering codenames.
Schedulers really don’t matter much for gaming workloads.
sched_ext is a bit more interesting. It’s not a scheduler with a new set of knobs to turn, but actually more of a BPF-powered scheduler framework. Being able to swap out the scheduler depending on the game’s needs could be a huge win, and there’s already a couple of schedulers like LAVD (phoronix article) that are designed for improving the Linux gaming experience.
Tweaking is usually not worth it. The most I really do is up sending like the mmap limit if a game is struggling.
Trying to squeeze every bit of performance out, yeah. I don’t want to waste my time trying to get a 1 FPS improvement either.
My concerns with tweaking are more along the lines of things like this happening. User reads about how to get better FPS, sees that some system package is really old, then tries to replace it with a newer one without knowing the risks.
That guy actually asked around and was convinced to just use Flatpak instead. But, suppose they didn’t ask around and instead followed a guide or YouTube video, breaking something in the process. The typical self-proclaimed “gamer” isn’t any more technologically savy than your average consumer, and probably isn’t going to spend the time learning how to fix their mistakes. It’s a more likely that they are just going to walk away with the impression that Linux sucks, and tell everyone else about how bad it was. And unfortunately, first impressions matter a lot when convincing other people to try things like ditching Windows for Linux. Avoiding stable distros is mitigation for that. If the package is already up to date or doesn’t require going off the happy path to update, it leads to less bad choices.
My overall perspective is that if you give gamers a gift-wrapped install that immediately just works, they won’t have a reason to improve or fix things until they’re actually ready to. If 19/20 of their games work out of the box, they’ll play those 19 games until they find the courage to try and learn how to make game #20 work. Or, maybe someone else will fix it for them first.
If 0 out of 20 games work and they need to follow a guide telling them to run various commands to install stuff and get started, they’re going to be overconfident and underprepared when they step outside of the guardrails and do at-your-own-risk stuff they find online.
Either you’ll have OS questions, in which case the generic help is ideal, or you’ll have game specific issues, in which case most distros will be extremely similar (e.g. proton db for game specific workarounds).
I meant game-specific issues, yeah.
Even with ProtonDB, I don’t think the typical coming-from-Windows gamer is going to end up having a simple experience.
With Windows, practically everyone is running the same system software. If some game is broken, they Google “windows 11 Cyberpunk crash” and get a bunch of suggestions and solutions relevant to them. I don’t like Windows, but it does have the fact that there’s a massive community of gamers running the same “distro” (or in this case, Windows version) going for it.
Even with ProtonDB, you have a bunch of people running different distros, different graphics driver implementations for a single graphics card vendor, and just a bunch of software fragmentation… A stable distro would probably be fine for newcomers if was tailored for gaming and had a critical mass of users, I’m sure. But in the current landscape, and for the reasons I listed in rant above, I simply don’t think it would be a good idea to put someone on a stable distro when they’re going to be surrounded with solutions from people on other distros describing how they fixed the problem by updating something or another.
For people coming to Linux, I’ll usually recommend sticking with Steam verified or playable games as well, since those should largely just work.
Absolutely. If it Just Works™, it leads to a better first impressions.
I see your point, but i don’t really agree that it doesn’t benefit gamers. In the 10 versions of kernels released since Bullseye released, we’ve seen improvements like the EEVDF allocator, sched_ext, the beginnings of ntsync, and an optimization to MDS mitigations for Intel processors. In a gaming-oriented distro, these would (ideally) be configured out of the box for the best gaming experience. Using a stable LTS distro, in contrast, would require manual tweaking and experimentation to achieve the same result.
But my understanding is that people (esp gamers) get annoyed more by stuff changing than missing out on new stuff.
They get annoyed when stuff visibly changes, like the desktop UI, userspace GUI programs, or noticable performance regressions.
Anecdotally, I have rarely seen the typical gamer complaining about or even noticing when something changes in technical stuff that they aren’t directly interacting with. Nintendo actually does a good job creating situations where you can observe that behavior, funnily enough. When they release a new console with a different UI, non-casual gamers vocally bitch about it being worse than the previous generation. But when it comes to updates, the complaints are pretty much all about how it only changes the bad word list, doesn’t have x in 2024, or how every update is just more “stability.” Meanwhile, they have successfully done major rewrites and changes behind the scenes without anyone but the CFW and modding scene actually noticing it.
The whole point of recommending a stable distro is to give the best chance of the person finding the help they need, as well as things not breaking randomly, and you get that with stable release distros.
I agree that a stable distro will be more stable, but I don’t agree that a stable distro is the best chance to get them help as a gaming newcomer. For newcomers in general, sure. But for gaming, it would be better to direct them towards a distro primarily focused on gaming, where they’ll have a likeminded community. A popular stable distro will have more community resources available overall, but most of that is just going to end up becoming noise that makes it harder for them to find a solution for game-related problems.
It’s not so much the lack of a rapid update cycle as much as it’s the pinned kernel version alongside the years-long pace of Debian’s stable upgrade cycle.
That would be fine if the kernel didn’t see much improvement over ~2 years of development, but there’s constantly new stuff being added or optimized with every kernel release. It’s just not much of a friendly introduction to Linux gaming for a newcomer to either have to pick between missing out on recent improvements, or diving into the intimidating realm of fiddling with packages and backported kernels—especially if they’re not coming from a tech savvy background.
Also, kernel upgrades. Unless the user knows about and specifically opts to use Debian backports, they’re going to be on the same kernel version until the next stable Debian release. It’s not the end of the world to leave performance on the table, but some people are picky about getting their money out of their hardware.
Using backports and upgrading to a newer kernel is fine for someone familiar with Linux and confident enough to tinker and make at-your-own-risk changes. Having to do that can be offputting for newcomers, coming across as intimidating or unnecessarily complicated.
I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with your conclusion of using any major distro. If you’ve ever had to fix a corrupted package manager database caused by an in-place distro upgrade or had to install third-party package repositories to get access to up-to-date software, you’ll understand where I’m coming from.
Beginners should start with something that either has bells and whistles included for out-of-the-box gaming, or comes with an easy way to un-fuck itself when you end up breaking something. It doesn’t need to be Nix, but it probably shouldn’t be Debian (which has a slow release cadence) or Ubuntu (because fuck Canonical and their “my way or the highway” approach to doing desktop OSes).
I’m not sure which part of that guys comment suggests anything other other than “fuck epic,” but here’s a short and sweet list:
- Designing a service for their customers instead of relying on paid exclusivity to encourage social pressure or FOMO
- Halfway decent customer support
- Unreal Engine 5’s performance
- Keeping their old of games accessible
- Not scamming kids out of virtual money
The approved competitor to a monopoly is… *checks notes* a wannabe monopoly that’s trying to buy their way into the position by providing less for the customer and instead bribing the publishers for exclusivity?
No, thanks. I would rather stick with the existing monopoly than reward Epic’s anticompetitive and anti-consumer bullshit.
Fair point with neither being publicly traded. I should have been more clear on that.
Unreal the engine, or the game series? From the perspective of a consumer, I don’t think either of them seem to be in good shape these days, unfortunately.
Er… Carmarck is in Id. Epic’s founder and CEO is Tim Sweeney.
“Making yourself suffer” by boycotting Steam.
It goes against every fiber of my being to not utterly despise a multi-billion dollar corporation, but I just don’t have the energy that I used to. I have to pick the battles I want to fight, and they haven’t done enough to make it worth it for me to do that.
Some perspective from someone vocally against Epic:
They entered the market and tried to get their foot in the door not by providing a better service or experience to the consumers, but by being underhanded and anticompetitive while accusing their competition of being underhanded and anticompetitive. Add on that with the fact that their CEO lacks any sort of humility and integrity, and I simply do not trust them to give a single shit about me as a customer. If they achieved their goals, I’m confident that they would leverage their position to extract value out of me immediately—be it through ads, increased prices, or selling my data to third parties. I don’t want to support that by giving them any of money.
While I don’t think Valve is my friend either, they at least:
-
Have a history of doing things that provide some benefit to their users, even if its clearly out of self-interest.
-
Aren’t publicly traded.
When it turns to shit, we have the high seas.
Everything goes to shit eventually, but pre-emptively making yourself suffer is just silly. Enjoy the time you have, and vote with your wallet once they start doing anticompetitive crap like paid exclusivity deals. Until then, we might as well enjoy the fact that Valve isn’t a public company obligated to chase short term profits for shareholders.
Reposting my comment from another thread because it needs to be made clear:
Those mod devs are absolute assholes.
As per the decompiled code, the game will refuse to load in certain cases with the message “Upgrade your PC, the current hardware is just ridiculous.” I can understand not wanting to field support requests from extremely outdated hardware, but being condescending and not even giving players the option to try playing it…
Yeah, I agree with you on that.
If discoverability was better, I’m sure Android would get way more ports of good games. With the way it is right now with shovelware and Google pushing microtransaction-riddled crap over one time purchase games, though, it’s treated as a second-class platform because it’s not nearly as profitable as other platforms.