51–60 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://ramiismail.com/2016/08/patch-the-process/ Not weird at all, "big day 1 patch" is very common for anything being distributed on consoles.
Is it common for the day 1 patch to rewrite the story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking about something else. > If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. As opposed to DirectX, which is not implementable on other systems without large reverse-engineering efforts, because the technology depends on proprietary and encumbered middle-ware. Does a former specification for D…
"An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is…
Mesa has hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL. You don't need "big org" to do it. But it surely helps if they put resources into that work.
> of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others (
It's worse than many others because their goal is not to improve the graphics stack, but to lock everyone into using MS systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking about something else. > If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. As opposed to DirectX, which is not implementable on other systems without large reverse-engineering efforts, because the technology depends on proprietary and encumbered middle-ware. Does a former specification for D…
"An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is…
My comment was about monopolies and how they creep into other fields through lock-in and proprietary technology which restrict choice. You have warped my comment into one advocating for a fully open platform stack, a strawman. At this point, why not also argue that the games are open source too? I mean, that would be nice, but it wasn't what I was saying.
> Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft.
And that's fine, as long as it doesn't come with strings attached such as "This technology shall only run on Microsoft Windows" or "All users of this technology, even open-source projects, must pay royalty fees".
I tired to reach developers with question whether they plan Linux release or not, but got no response. So not really looking forward to it. Everspace on the other hand looks quite promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HvpLe-2ijk
I never understood why people on Linux always fight to have games on the platform. From the dev perspective, Linux is probably a sub 5% market share so it's never worth the effort compared to releasing new features/content. Why fight this losing trend when you could easily dual boot or even have a dedicated gaming rig?
I like to stay on linux because it is a great development environment and as soon as I am done with a game or get psyched for implementing an idea during yhe game, I am able to switch immediately back to whatever I was doing before I started playing.
Your suggested alternative of waiting for a reboot and restoring all the files and editors is just uncomfortable and I am surprised you couldn't figure this out.
I tired to reach developers with question whether they plan Linux release or not, but got no response. So not really looking forward to it. Everspace on the other hand looks quite promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HvpLe-2ijk
It's funny how he cites Carmack's plan/finger updates as a source of inspiration since these kind of changes went in over the course of the games development, not on a day 1 patch! If you consider the game on 'disc' as the finished product, there is no way you could consider this game complete given the incredible number of changes in this patch. A while back reviewers tried to pull this 'on disc review only' thing a…
Apparently these massive day-one patches are a way to work around consoles' certification programs: http://ramiismail.com/2016/08/patch-the-process/
Source: I sheparded 3 AAA games through cert for playstation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is…
Sorry, you are talking about something else too. My comment was about monopolies and how they creep into other fields through lock-in and proprietary technology which restrict choice. You have warped my comment into one advocating for a fully open platform stack, a strawman. At this point, why not also argue that the games are open source too? I mean, that would be nice, but it wasn't what I was saying. > Which are a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why people on Linux always fight to have games on the platform. From the dev perspective, Linux is probably a sub 5% market share so it's never worth the effort compared to releasing new features/content. Why fight this losing trend when you could easily dual boot or even have a dedicated gaming rig?
Mac used to be the same story, but now I would bet that at least 10% of indie game sales are on Mac. If you're using tools like Unity, then shipping to Linux is not nearly the headache it used to be. I play a lot of games, but thanks to this shift I no longer have to run Windows (can't play overwatch but I can live without it for now). I, for one, am glad I don't have to double my purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, you are talking about something else too. My comment was about monopolies and how they creep into other fields through lock-in and proprietary technology which restrict choice. You have warped my comment into one advocating for a fully open platform stack, a strawman. At this point, why not also argue that the games are open source too? I mean, that would be nice, but it wasn't what I was saying. > Which are a…
Sorry, - strawman was not intended. As a person with some experience in the graphics industry, the way I see it: if one uses hardware accelerated real time graphics capability, one is always effectively locking some parts of the rendering codebase in to some specific hardware platform. No matter what the API used to program the platform, you are effectively locked in to very few vendors. There really is no rational r…
How are they a good player, if they could back Vulkan instead of pushing lock-in DX12, but they didn't? It's clearly bad.