• 2.56K Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023


  • The issue with Nintendo is that to their true core, they are still a of card games company that inspire to become the next Disney. The problem with GameCube was polluted with the “for family first”, without realize that their original NES '80 kids where 15~20 year older… not little child anymore. People didn’t want the “Super Mario Sunshine” console, they wanted Resident Evil 4, Silent Hill 2~3 kind of console. The people that buy today the switch are probably clueless parent that buy the “for child” console… or a Nintendo Adult as parallel for Disney Adult.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.