Microsoft acquire Activision

Associate
Joined
8 Oct 2020
Posts
2,329
You’ve got to be joking right? :p

I don’t disagree it’s come a long way, it’s not even close to being ready for the mass market. Easily used with basic knowledge, that’s a good one :cry:

You can’t really make the case that it’s only been a year, people have been trying to game in linux as long as I can remember. Even Valve/Steam tried (and failed) to launch a Linux gaming computer in 2014, 8 years ago!

Ah, so your knowledge comes from 8 years ago. Aligns with your comments :D Do you still compile your own games via punch card?

I literally said it's too soon to say but that there has been significant movement over the past year and a bit. Takes max 15min to load a popular distro and install some additional software (if it's not included by default).
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,236
Thats down to the developers though.

Download steam on linux right now and boot up tomb raider and it works just like that mate.

btw tomb raider works natively on linux fyi

Its not just down to game developers, one of the things that holds linux back is also one of the things that makes it good for other uses.

There is no way you can expect game developers to validate their games across tens of different ditros, across a wide range of hardware and software. It just isn’t going to happen.

It’s also great that one game is easy to install but that doesn’t really fly now does it?

Once you get out of those few well supported games on steam, it’s really not a great experience if all you want to do is play games.

Ah, so your knowledge comes from 8 years ago. Aligns with your comments :D Do you still compile your own games via punch card?

I literally said it's too soon to say but that there has been significant movement over the past year and a bit. Takes max 15min to load a popular distro and install some additional software (if it's not included by default).

Since how does my post relate to knowledge from 8 years ago. You said they’ve been working on this for only a year, all I did was point out that they’ve certainly been at it for more like a decade or more. Steam machines were announced back in 2014 and they would have been working on it for a long time before then to get to that announcement.

It’s really not that simple, and it’s really not for those with basic knowledge at all. Basic knowledge is, turn on PC, download launcher, play. That isn’t the Linux experience in reality.

Loads of the games on the ‘working’ list are require a lot of work just to get them going.

If you asked someone on windows to run an unsigned patch/script to get a game working made by a random online, you’d fall of your chair because of how stupid an idea that would be for an everyday user.

Lots of popular multiplayer games just don’t work at all due to the anti cheat issues or have issues with different versions of the game. Likewise your not playing anything without native dev support on release either which is the vast majority of games.

Anyone that isn’t a Linux enthusiast just wants to play games with zero hassle, even downloading more than one launcher is too much for some people. They also want to play with their friends the day the game comes out. That’s the lowest common denominator that Linux needs to cater to for it to gain traction.

I don’t disagree that it’s come a long way, and more and more games are ‘supported’ by the community but that doesn’t make it anything close to being ready for a mainstream experience.

Like I said, I expect most steam desk owners will just play games Valve officially support via Steam, or they’ll just put windows on it so they can play games they want to play without any grief from other launchers.

This isn’t a Linux vs Windows thread and ultimately way off topic. But someone had to dispel the notion that linux gaming was for those with basic knowledge, because it isn’t.
 
Permabanned
Joined
19 Jan 2022
Posts
75
Location
North
I remember being flabbergasted at the 7billion for bathesda deal but this is just bonkers, insane amount of money. This is a play looking 15-20 years into the future rather than a shortish term play.

not sure if I like it though, guess it’s great for game pass owners (inc myself) but not sure I like that basically 4 American companies are going to own just about everything.

Sony literally can’t do anything about it either, they can’t afford a take two or something of this calibre. The implications could be negative if they end up crushing Sony by pulling games from there systems, competition is healthy.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,236
Why? Nintendo have not cared about having the flashiest games since the Game Cube. They very much do their own thing and don't really care about Sony or MS.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2003
Posts
5,464
It’s interesting; massive takeover for Microsoft but as folk are saying still “only’ moves them into 3rd place.

They’re in a position where they could continue to release games on PS/Nintendo while still keeping the advantage of making them free to Game Pass users on Microsoft consoles.

That said Sony must be thinking about some kind of “retaliation” for this and the previous Bethesda takeover; surely Rockstar has to be up for grabs? GTA as an exclusive to one console would be a massive draw potentially; probably more than almost any other game.

I feel like a Capcom, Square or Konami would be more likely if Sony were to take that route. But i don't think they have as much down the back of their sofa as MS seemingly does! lol
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2004
Posts
5,903
Location
Essex
Microsoft need to just finish them off. Sony got lazy having such a devoted brand following and now are going to struggle having the weaker hardware and increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue. Xbox hardware, Xbox live, game pass are all superior to the Sony offerings. PlayStation can only trade on brand goodwill for so long. Ironic that Sony chucked the “for the players” slogan out there but every decision since has been against the customer. £70 first party games FFS! Hilariously arrogant really!
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Oct 2005
Posts
15,418
Microsoft need to just finish them off. Sony got lazy having such a devoted brand following and now are going to struggle having the weaker hardware and increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue. Xbox hardware, Xbox live, game pass are all superior to the Sony offerings. PlayStation can only trade on brand goodwill for so long. Ironic that Sony chucked the “for the players” slogan out there but every decision since has been against the customer. £70 first party games FFS! Hilariously arrogant really!
Yes, because Microsoft having total monopoly (excluding Nintendo, who do their own thing) of the whole console/gaming sector is a great thing. Get real.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,588
Smart move from Microsoft. They're paying roughly $10bn less than the market cap a year ago. If they can fix the management issues and repair the company culture, they will likely profit off this deal (and that's before considering what they could do with the games and how they could grow the business versus where it was a year ago).

$68.7bn is a lot of money. But inflation is on the up. Makes more sense to invest the money than leave it in the bank, where its value will diminish.

From a gaming PoV, I'm looking forward to seeing which franchises Microsoft revives. Warcraft and StarCraft are almost a given, surely?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2008
Posts
17,457
Microsoft need to just finish them off. Sony got lazy having such a devoted brand following and now are going to struggle having the weaker hardware and increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue. Xbox hardware, Xbox live, game pass are all superior to the Sony offerings. PlayStation can only trade on brand goodwill for so long. Ironic that Sony chucked the “for the players” slogan out there but every decision since has been against the customer. £70 first party games FFS! Hilariously arrogant really!
Yet I still prefer Sony exclusives over everything Microsoft currently has.

That being said I do still love what Microsoft offers with game pass in particular. I've enjoyed many titles I wouldn't normally look at as well as still liking there first party games.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
12,450
Location
Chatteris
Microsoft need to just finish them off. Sony got lazy having such a devoted brand following and now are going to struggle having the weaker hardware and increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue. Xbox hardware, Xbox live, game pass are all superior to the Sony offerings. PlayStation can only trade on brand goodwill for so long. Ironic that Sony chucked the “for the players” slogan out there but every decision since has been against the customer. £70 first party games FFS! Hilariously arrogant really!

Yet the PS5 is out-selling it's nearest rival 2:1.
The £70 games thing just doesn't happen as nobody buying retail pays that price and nobody (with any sense) is buying digital without first buying their PSN currency at a reduced rate.
Those that do just part with £70 genuinely don't care and will continue to buy whatever the cost.
They were never going to struggle with the "weaker hardware" when it translates to only around a 10-15% disadvantage in raw power and as for the "increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue" - well, Bethesda & Activision - I'm certainly losing no sleep over the possibility of never seeing any game from them on the Sony platform again.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,206
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Yet the PS5 is out-selling it's nearest rival 2:1.
The £70 games thing just doesn't happen as nobody buying retail pays that price and nobody (with any sense) is buying digital without first buying their PSN currency at a reduced rate.
Those that do just part with £70 genuinely don't care and will continue to buy whatever the cost.
They were never going to struggle with the "weaker hardware" when it translates to only around a 10-15% disadvantage in raw power and as for the "increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue" - well, Bethesda & Activision - I'm certainly losing no sleep over the possibility of never seeing any game from them on the Sony platform again.

It's not 2:1 this generation. It's much closer than that. Last number it's like for every 4 PS5, at least 3 Xbox SX sold or something like that. At most it's 3:2.

It's hard to know the exact number for Xbox as they don't publish them anymore but they did say it's the most successful meaning it's more than the 360. I heard of Gamescoop (IGN) the ratio are much closer.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Jul 2004
Posts
44,080
Location
/* */
Yet the PS5 is out-selling it's nearest rival 2:1.
The £70 games thing just doesn't happen as nobody buying retail pays that price and nobody (with any sense) is buying digital without first buying their PSN currency at a reduced rate.
Those that do just part with £70 genuinely don't care and will continue to buy whatever the cost.
They were never going to struggle with the "weaker hardware" when it translates to only around a 10-15% disadvantage in raw power and as for the "increasingly constricted 3rd party catalogue" - well, Bethesda & Activision - I'm certainly losing no sleep over the possibility of never seeing any game from them on the Sony platform again.

Isn’t Nintendo giving Sony a Royal spanking this generation?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,978
Location
N.Devon
It's not 2:1 this generation. It's much closer than that. Last number it's like for every 4 PS5, at least 3 Xbox SX sold or something like that. At most it's 3:2.

It's hard to know the exact number for Xbox as they don't publish them anymore but they did say it's the most successful meaning it's more than the 360. I heard of Gamescoop (IGN) the ratio are much closer.

I think a lot of that is the relative ease you can get a Series S.
 
Back
Top Bottom