[–] 2 points 1 day ago

I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference. After spending a little time with my frame I'm just viewing it as featuring hot swappable batteries that Valve didn't bother to include. The internal one really isn't good for much unless you like watching battery indicators rapidly decrease.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Option 1 would results in less playtime.

    Every time you move power from one place to another, you incur a loss. Charging the frame from the battery bank, is not as efficient as using that power directly in the first place to run the frame.

    A charge cycle is also the main source of wear for a battery cell, so option 1 would also be the one that is worse for the frame battery.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago

    Theoretically there should be no notable difference in play time. That said, adding an extra charge cycle for no reason isn't a great idea, so I'd recommend plugging in at the start.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    It’s weird because in a way what I’d really want is a launcher like Heroic integrating Steam and GOG.

    Gog Galaxy on Linux isn’t probably gonna change this..

    Rights now I use Heroic for most of my games (GOG), but since I have a Steam Deck I’m launching the games through Steam.

    I feel like everything relies on Valve and it’s willingness to allow other launchers, but what happens if they change their mind.

    It would be good if Valve was part of the ecosystem and not the ecosystem.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    I’m not too worried about Linux gaming. I think there’s already enough momentum behind it that it’ll keep growing steadily.

    Look at the retro gaming hardware scene (handhelds) and it’s dominated by Linux at the low end and Android at the high end. Windows is a non factor.

    Sure it’s important to signal Linux‘s viability for new AAA games or whatever, but I think that market mostly doesn’t care what platform they’re on. They just buy whatever hardware is most convenient for them to play GTA 6 or something.

    I for one haven’t played a AAA game released in the last decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • I don’t have a problem with it as long as it remains optional. So often though it feels like they’re trying to get enough people on the platform and then they can lock ‘em in and start enshittification, knowing they have people hostage to their game libraries.

    That seems pretty remote for GOG since they’re all about no DRM, but their website has become more assertive about pushing Galaxy in recent years and that raises my anti- dark pattern hackles.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Having an official GOG client might also mean that developers producing games on GOG are incentivised to make them work (either natively or with Proton), and we could also get some sort of "works well on Linux" tag on the GOG store (like there is on Steam!)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I use a desktop pc and it is power hungry even at idle so battery life isn't an issue to me.

    I would like to manage my library without needing to fiddle with Wine prefixes (which for most 2000s games I have to) or Lutris.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 17 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I think you're missing the point. I don’t use GOG much at all, primarily because I’m lazy and just want all my games in the same place, but this is still fantastic news! It's about legitimizing Linux gaming at large. It’s signaling to developers that the market share of users they cut off by explicitly excluding Linux (through kernel anti cheat or however else) is growing, and it's signaling the public that Linux is a legitimate option. It's one more nail in the coffin of Windows as the defacto gaming OS.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›