A third difference is that I've seen no signs of steam actually abusing their standing in the market. If anything they seem to be nicer than they have to be.
They absolutely keep a larger cut than others. With Epic the first million you make is free. After much deliberation, steam changed it so that their 30% cut is reduced if you make more than 10M. For a lot of indie devs, its pretty much a death sentence.
That's Epic using its money from other markets for loss leader schemes in order to grab market share. It's a very classic move (same as free games), and it's always detrimental to the market and customers in the long run.
It's not a good thing, epic games is a garbage company. That they're actively losing money to prop up their store should tell you how bad of a thing it is if it ever succeeds.
High prices are a sign of their competitors failing to compete. Are they using their standing to make competing with them harder, somehow? For example, they dont do Amazon style prohibitions of selling the product cheaper elsewhere.
I'd love for the cut to be smaller, but it is absolutely not a "death sentence." With traditional consoles (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft consoles, and those before them), the barrier to entry is very high. If you are an indie, it is practically necessary to work with a publisher to get on those platforms. The publishers demand their own cut (in addition to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft), and as they are running a business, they only take on games that they expect will make a profit. In that environment, weird little developers making weird little games will almost always be shut down before they can even see the light of day. I think it is a little easier in the modern day (you don't need a blessed dev kit to make a console game, for example), but I think the barrier is still not trivial.
The PC games space has always been more open. If you had a weird game you wanted to share, you could share a disc with your friends or make it available on your website. But, again, if you wanted to make some decent money, you probably needed a marketing department and to have a boxed copy on store shelves (which, again, means working with a publisher). With a few exceptions, hardly anyone would ever find your game otherwise.
With modern-day Steam, an indie dev needs only to pay $100 to put a game on Steam (and I believe that $100 is refunded if the game crosses a certain threshold of sales). Discoverability is still a challenge, but just by existing on Steam, an indie game has a chance to make a bit of money. Steam itself has some discoverability features that can boost the visibility of even quirky little titles. The indie dev needs to do their own work, of course, to get visibility, but they don't need to have major resources behind them to get that visibility. They don't necessarily even need to host a website anymore - the game has a page on the Internet through Steam after all. The indie dev can direct anyone who will listen to them to go there.
All that said, I do agree that Steam is practically a monopoly. If Steam decided they hate you for some reason, then that's it. You almost certainly do not have a viable path forward for selling your PC game simply because they have such dominance (see the recent controversy where major payment processors suddenly decided they would not facilitate the sale of lewd games, and Steam reacted by pulling any game that seemed to fall into that category. Although, even in that case, the harmful monopoly tactics are coming from different actors in a different industry). For the time being, I just think they are kind of a benevolent dictator.
Indie games pay for discoverabiliy (don't know if that's a word). To be clear, I mostly use GoG when I can, unless it's a multiplayer game with bad lobby/MP support (Firaxis/paradox basically)
Indie game development largely owes its existence to Steam. I know I would spend a lot less on indie games if I had to buy them from their own websites or, god forbid, through an awful laggy "app store" run by Ubisoft or Microsoft.
If competitors offer passable services for selling indie game developers, then indie game developers would be able to earn more money (due to competition).
This is why developers are hopeful for alternative services.
Perl since 5.8.something has had the option of perturbing the hash function, so it is different from run to run. You can also set the set to a given value in order to lock in the sequence.
In any case, it is not ordered. If you want that, you have to explicitly sort the keys of the hash.
Great. Maybe GP will go a step farther and also mandate arrays that return elements in random order too. Relying on insertion order for any reason is for weaklings.
Uh, AMD drivers have most assuredly not always not just worked. They do now, and they have for something like 10 years, but before that they were a steaming pile of locked in garbage.
not to split hairs, but I think the parent is justified in saying they “always worked” if they’ve been this good for a decade.
If I was 10 years younger than I am today, my perspective would have been that it “always worked” and at some point we have to acknowledge that there has been good work done and things are quite stable in the modern day. 10y is not a small amount of time to prove it out.
While I don't like the tone of the grandparent, comparing to Go is kinda irrelevant when it used structured concurrency as the example of how to solve it. It is of course also not a panacea..
Work stealing is more a technique to function better when architecture is pessimal (think mixing slow and fast tasks in one queue) than something that make things go faster in general. It also tend to shuffle around complexity a bit, in ways that are sometimes nice.
Same thing with task preemption, though that one has less organisatorial impact.
In general, getting something to perform well enough on specific tasks is a lot easier than performing well enough on tasks in general. At the same time, most tasks have kinda specific needs when you start looking at them..
I take it you've never actually interfaced directly with hardware?
Interrupts are at the most basic level an electrical signal to the CPU to tell it to load a new address into the next instruction pointer after pushing the current one and possibly some other registers onto the stack. That means you don't actually know when they will happen and they are transparent to the point that those two instructions that you put right after one another are possibly detoured to do an unknown amount of work in some other place.
Any kind of side effect from that detour (time spent, changes made to the state of the machine) has the potential to screw up the previously deterministic path that you were on.
To make matters worse, there are interrupts that can interrupt the detour in turn. There are ways in which you can tell the CPU 'not now' and there are ways in which those can be overridden. If you are lucky you can uniquely identify the device that caused the interrupt to be triggered. But this isn't always the case and given the sensitivity of the inputs involved it isn't rare at all that your interrupt will trigger without any ground to do so. If that happens and the ISR is not written with that particular idea in mind you may end up with a system in an undefined state.
Interrupts are a very practical mechanism. But they're also a nightmare to deal with in the otherwise orderly affairs of computing and troubleshooting interrupt related issues can eat up days, weeks or even months if you are really unlucky.
In the vocabulary of finance you don't multiply in gains, you add them. It probably historically derives from dividends being added. At the transactional level you never actually multiply money, after all (unless you're a bank).
reply