I don’t know why but 4 years after the official launch I started playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons.
I like it because other than the stores schedule there is no timer constantly running like you have in Stardew Valley. I tend to get very anxious/FOMO in games with timed events and where 24 hours are like 1 hour or 20 minutes in real time.
I’m not gonna coerce her into using Linux, lol. That’s a surefire way to make sure she hates it and blames any little hiccups on Linux, even if it’s not the OS’s fault.
I have learned the hard way that insisting/coercing/whatever is a very bad strategy for spreading something that you think is better for the people/the planet. Anyway, what I do, is just say “I only work with libre systems because I have ethical guides” And, also because I cannot give you any support on windows, mac, whatsoever.
I found that Steam ran flawlessly on both Fedora and openSuse. I’ve played Age of Empires II, Half Life, Half Life 2 etc, Skyrim, Firewatch; all with no problems.
That’s what every game company has said about every game for decades though! A game disc which installs and plays the game was legally still some nebulous “this provides a licence to play the game which can be revoked at any time”, it’s only now that the companies actually have the power to revoke them at any time.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀Always has been. You never owned the software. Even when games were on cd or cartridge. The only thing that is your legal possession is the physical CD or cartridge and the license that came with it.
Always has been a blatant motherfucking lie, you mean.
Saying you don’t own a game you bought is exactly as batshit insane as saying you don’t own a paper book you bought. We wouldn’t put up with this shit for that, so we shouldn’t put up with it for games either!
Stop letting the copyright cartel steal our property rights and drive us into serfdom.
There are two different ownerships that are being conflated here. When you buy a book, let’s say it’s a new book, just released, and rapidly becoming a best seller. You own your copy of the book, you can read it, you can make notes in it, you can lend it to a friend but while your friend has the book you can’t read that book yourself, or you can sell the book again but once you sell it you won’t be able to read it anymore until you purchase another copy or go to the library. What you’re not allowed to do just because you have the book is make copies of it to sell or give away (which is somewhat challenging to do anyway with a physical book that has hundreds of pages), you’re not allowed to make and sell an audiobook recording of the book, you’re not allowed to go and make a movie based on the book. You’re not allowed to take the characters and write a sequel to the book and sell it. The author still owns the rights to the contents of the book.
In the early days of books, especially the 19th century as books became easier to produce and more people could read, a lot of this started to become problems. People with printing presses would see a book people like, get a copy, and start printing and selling copies on their own. They made translations and sold copies in other countries. People would produce plays based on the books, and depending on where it was performed the author might never know about it. This was all usually done without the involvement of the author and the author often was not paid from these. A surprising number of highly regarded and top selling authors wound up making very little money from their books because they weren’t being paid for most of the copies being sold. Many died poor. This led to the development of the concept of copyright and various other associated rights.
These rights became more complicated as media progressed. With audio recordings there are multiple rights involved: the person who wrote the song has a copyright on the actual music and lyrics, and the person who performed the song has a copyright to the recording of their performance. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they’re different.
The laws kept getting more complicated. With software, the developer or publisher owned the software, often because the developer was working under contract to the publisher or sold the software to the publisher. It’s kind of rare to sell the actual software to a customer, and is usually done only for corporate or government clients. In that case the entire rights to the software are transferred and the publisher/developer can’t sell another copy to someone else. Much more commonly only a license to the software is sold to many different customers, and what exactly that license involves can vary widely in the legal terms of that license (which most people never read). Some are very restrictive. It used to be that a lot of licenses specifically tied the copy that you purchased to the hardware you first installed it on. If that hardware died or you purchased a new model, too bad, you’re now supposed to buy a new copy. Some licenses said you’re not allowed to change the code of the software, some licenses allow it. Ten or fifteen years ago people didn’t really think about the idea of streaming gameplay and creating a video from a game was considered a derivative work and not allowed, like making a movie from a book. Now a lot of licenses explicitly allow streaming gameplay, but some older games that weren’t planning for it might not have the rights to stream the music from the game.
If you violated those rights in the past, the terms technically said those rights ended and you were supposed to stop using the license. In practice this was on the honor system and the licensor would rarely know about it, unless they sent an auditor to check compliance, which was usually only worth doing at large companies. With the internet, companies now have the ability to actually access your computer and monitor your use of the software you’ve licensed. They can even disable your access to this software. Unfortunately, of course, a lot of companies have gone the greedy route and used this to their own advantage and at cost to the customer. Not everyone does, though. It’s really important to know what the terms of the license say. If they say they can delete the game you’ve bought and not refund you, don’t buy from them. Don’t give them money for this crap. Let the game flop, even if it otherwise looked great. Support the developers and publishers who want to support the customers. Read the terms on your software; you should always have the option to say you don’t agree and get your money back if you don’t go through with installation. And the laws that allow bad licenses don’t have to stay as they are; some jurisdictions are friendlier to consumers than others.
It’s the same with paper books though. If you buy a paper book you don’t automatically own the rights of that work. You own the copy and can sell that copy or even make a copy for private use. But you can’t make copies of that book to sell, since you don’t own the copyright
Copyright is definitely being abused by the big corporations but without copyright small artists/software developers would constantly get their work stolen by those big corporations.
…which is the entirety of the important part. Once the store sells you the copy, that’s it: the copryight holder has no more right whatsoever to say what gets done to that copy. In particular, it does not have the right to dictate to you when, where, or how you may use your property, e.g. by requiring an Internet connection for the fucking thing to run!
The copyright holder’s temporary monopoly privilege should not be allowed to supersede or infringe upon the copy owner’s actual property rights in even the slightest way. Full stop, end of. The publisher’s business model is its own damn problem, not the customer’s. If it relies on destroying the latter’s rights in order to achieve profitability, the business deserves to fail!
I feel like some people just say this out of spite because they don’t like that the game was remade. My dude you spent 35 hours on this game. Who are you trying to fool?
And for those games that aren’t Steam based, I use Bottles, and then use the feature inside a Bottles that adds the game to my Steam library, so they can be launched directly from Steam.
Fedora seems to have the best support for hardware, of all the distros that I’ve tried.
“Bazzite is a custom image of Fedora Atomic Linux 40, utilizing Universal Blue’s custom image framework designed to bring users the best in Linux gaming for their PCs, including the Steam Deck and other handhelds.”
I used to write personal GitHub gists in the 6 years I’ve been using Linux/Fedora. To share with others to tweak their Fedora installs for gaming. Don’t have to do that anymore!
Me. The vertical is slightly lower than the horizontal. Means I turn fast but stay more on the horizon. Probably a habit from FPS where targets are pretty much on the same level as you.
The more people mention this, the more I’m almost starting to continue trying it. If you really get used to it, it probably does make it easier to adjust the Y axis for headshots, while you’re turning through the X axis. Basically, if you have to cover more Y axis space on the mousepad to adjust the same amount of Y pixels on the screen, you’d theoretically be less likely to move too much in that axis, and overshoot where you want to place the crosshairs.
On the other hand, I’ve been using the same values for X and Y for decades. There’s a lot of accumulated muscle memory to reprogram.
Now I wonder how many pro FPS players play with different X and Y settings…
Most distros are going to run games just fine, but if you want something specifically tuned for games I recommend Nobara Linux. It comes with everything you need out of the box.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne