Despite what people say, Nvidia is certanly the one with most complete support for Linux… if support for a OS is defined by how Windows is supported.

The way GPU are supported on Windows is this: Microsoft pick your whole experience, then you install the setup.exe with a bunch of bloat and some advertisement from the OEM (Nvidia or the Nvidia’s GPU resellers like EVGA, ASUS…)

If you stick with the most popular distro which have the exact Linux kernel Nvidia support… yeah, nothing can beat Nvidia. You have amazing support for nearly every feature your GPU offer (cuda, ray tracing etc), but if you want to try some kind more exotic flavour of Linux, expect problem.

AMD, being much more OpenSource friendly, it mean you can have the top notch 3D acceleration on basically anything, even Puppy Linux ( a ~200MiB Linux live distro), but if you’re looking for more advanced features (like OpenCL of LLM support)… well, good luck with that: eventually, someday, they also will work (if meanwhile AMD don’t drop support your card if too old).

There’s no perfect answer. Despite the flaws, people in the Linux community love AMD because they give drive support in the “Linux’s way”. Nvidia support is better, but it’s the “Window’s way”, and you need to stick to the rules on what Nvidia consider “Linux” (which, for short, is “Canonical’s Ubuntu”)

Depend on the flow, when the gaming industry row against it (ie: Epic store exclusivity to exclude Linux’s support by indie develeopers, Anti-cheat that bar Linux support away) Linux adoption stay around 1% while sustaining the growth of PC gaming (it mean Linux keep growth together anyway).

Now, with SteamDeck we have a situation where the “row against” is still there, albeit much lower because publisher AAA aren’t too sure they want to be kept out SteamDeck’s business.

We still see how much fast Linux adoption will growth when the industry goes “neutral” (aka: do not go against with Anticheat)… and even when, someday maybe, they will just “support”.

So far now, Linux is going great if you consider AAA publisher did fail to sink it down (the only single big entity that openly support (not even exclusively) is Valve).

When you go against the flow you look slow: but the energy behind you is double than anybody else.

Q/A in Japanese

Currently in the industry there are two ways to get the “big money” without resort on MTX and GaaS.

1. “big day one selling carnival”. With few exception with titles such as Skyrim and GTAV (which have multiple “day one” or duble-dip), this is how the AAA industry makes the big money: the very first days is where the publisher try to recover+earn money as whole. Later copies sold are mostly for bundles or special offer.

2. Early Access program. That’s where Palworld fall into. With few exceptions, this is the primary tool for indie developer that can’t invest money in marketing “big day one carnival”. It’s safer because route because they don’t to compete with the “day one carnival” from other AAA publisher. And can know straight away how much money they need to scale up (or down) their vision for the project (something WB couldn’t have when they went the suicide squad route)

Basically, for Palworld have success (or not) alter how the product scale the game itself will be.

“Because people would stop buying their games!” [makes] “it’s perfectly legal”?

That’s your logic?

Selling things with no warranty is perfectly legal.

You seems unaware that most countries have consumer protection laws. They cover mandatory warranty, health and security protocols (for physical stuff) and all sort of laws against planned obsolescence, fair competition etc…etc.

Just don’t buy from Ubisoft! It’s easy!

If you’re unaware that Ubisoft is going against consumer laws… well, of course you say so. Make yourself a question. If it’s perfectly legal for Ubisoft to “shut down” phisical videogames you bought in the store: why isn’t everybody doing so?

To put the PS4 under strain, the production value should reach at the very minimum Red Dead Redemption II on PS4… I don’t think this lowpoly PS1 cartoon looking redux is gonna get the same amount of investment as RDR2.

It looks like you believe that EULA rewrite the law; big news: that’s not how things works. EULA could add something like

…AND, SOMETIME, WE’LL BARGE IN YOUR HOUSE AND TAKE STUFF WE LIKE.

After you have accepted the EULA and they trespass in your house stealing stuff, you know what will happen?

They end up in jail for stealing the same as any common thieves.

[BY POSTING REPLY TO THIS POST, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL YOUR BELONING ARE OWNED BY @[email protected]. PLEASE CLICK ON THE REPLY BUTTON ONLY IF YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS]

If your political stance on this is to just shut up… well, honor your political stance and…just shut up.

This is people who don’t fall into this crap telling people that did fall into this crap simply: “you don’t deserve this: let’s fight your, and our, way out”.

People who fall for this crap, is giving resource to the crappiest companies: and with money, the crappiest companies can buy their way back also on you.

Given that the original game came out for PS1, the only Sony’s console this game may not run would be that weirid CD-drive add-on they made for the SNES back in the days ref

Never trust a 10/10 on any game on (or before) day release

Original name for these device was UMPC, now rebranded as “handheld” because flow better in tweet an youtube videos titles.

F2P games target need big number of people, by necessity their biggest customer share is low-income people: proposing them luxury range product and peer-pressure (“to look good”) is what I call dishonest.

Worse than what they’ve been doing for the last decade? It seems to me like this is a better state of things because it’s clearly a lot of money for one big purchase, so you know immediately that it’s not something you can afford. Better transparency, so less manipulative.

Clearly so it seems to you. There are companies that, more simply, don’t do this at all: they don’t need to be transparent on how dishonest they are… because they aren’t.

If your argument “in secret they may be”… well, if your point is “entities that seems honest are the most secretly dishonest”, I think the first entity that we can apply your logic is your very self: you pretend to be honest in defend companies who behave transparently dishonest… it simply mean that you’re honesty is just a show off, while in truth you’re just shilling.

That’s your logic: next time behave openly dishonest, so we know how much transparently dishonest you are.

What’s the downside?

Customer manipulation.

You could say “of course don’t affect me” to FOMO, p2w, whales, dark patterns and alike… but just because you personally ignore it, it doesn’t mean it’s going to vanish. Industries live and evolve through money, the next iteration of video gaming is made by where money went.

LoL players came from a mod of Warcraft III; Riot is slowly cooking (put in warm-to-boil water) their frog customers in something people don’t consider healthy (generally with “they are them, not me, so I don’t care”).

👉 cookie wall

… he feel safe for about the next ~48 hours.

For indie developer you got itch.io… then the void.

How this is Valve fault? You can’t blame a company in both direction for the same argument, you have to pick a side for your criticism.

Valve was accused to allow all sort of shovelware by indie developers… then you got the competition like GoG that say: " sure, we will have store curation: we will give indie developers the discipline that Valve won’t "

How things gone for GoG in the indie sphere? You remember any indie recently booming on GoG… Because surely can name few on both Steam and itch.io.

There are different types of monopoly: the one that attempt Epic by using bribe money just so everyone come to their Battle Royale… and one you get because all the companies around you ignore what customers and business (indie Dev) wants: a democratic platform like itch.io (in which Valve is closer with its approach)