Facepunch are no longer selling the Linux version of the survival game Rust (updated)

Quoting: LeopardSaying or at least implying that " Linux support pulled due to X facts but that is understandable " is not suitable for a Linux gaming website imo.

I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree. I can understand something, while still not being happy about it.

Quoting: LeopardSure , we are small and we're lucky to have so many games but that shouldn't mean when a negative thing occurs like this ; normalizing it is not helpful.

I'm not normalizing anything.

Quoting: LeopardThen how other developers keep being synced and supporting Windows , Mac , Linux same time? Either that must be a some sort of magic or that is simply that Facepunch's situation is out of excuses.

Every game is different.

Quoting: LeopardThis is not Kotaku , we are here for a reason. If i would like to see Windows point of view when it comes to Linux , i wouldn't be here.

Again, you're not making any sense. Everything I write is from the point of view of someone who has been using Linux since he was 15, I'm turning 30 on Monday. I've used Linux for my entire adult life, nothing about my point of view is from Windows.

Quoting: GuestUnity3D is not known for good QA as well with regard to Linux, however, they usually eventually address their issues in future updates. Nvidia has had it's ups and downs as well. These things are to be expected and really nothing new. Mature software doesn't and shouldn't rely on the bleeding edge of engine and library releases for this reason. You wait for major releases to stabilize before you base your code around it. It's a sensible development model.

Yes. Very much so. You either take SOME risks on bleeding edge stuff, have your stuff dead-on instead of so-so, or you wait.

There's a reason I'm...unlikely...to use Unity for any game I'm fielding anytime soon. And yes, there was more to that remark than meets the eye.

;-D

As for Facepunch and Rust, I've largely said my peace, wound down a bit- I'm unlikely to natter on much more about it. Doesn't do well, as Liam's rightly pointing out here- it's enough to bitch once and move on. I find the "updates only" mentality to be also...problematic...symptomatic of a studio I wouldn't trust ever again. Oh, if they fix the engine or the drivers we'll fix our game, but we won't sell it to you anymore? Seriously?

X-D

It's time to shrug, mutter "go f*ck yourselves", turn our backs and move on. Seriously.

Quoting: GuestIn the end, with regard to Facepunch, this comes down to Ego (with regard to their successful game sales), attitude, and lazyness. Game developers with far less resources, using Unity3D, are able to manage a Linux release without drama or games.

Looking at Facepunch from a bigger picture, they have probably peaked in just about everything, sales, creativity, and fanfare. And the Linux gaming environment has changed since the early days of Rust. We all have more options and Linux support is almost expected when looking at Steam titles. So in the end, what Facepunch does is of little consequence in the big picture. Facepunch can fade into the background and nothing will have been lost.

Hm. Sounds almost like PUBG, doesn't it?


Last edited by svartalf on 27 July 2018 at 9:15 pm UTC

How hard it is for devs to just say "We support this particular distribution with these particular GPU drivers. Feel free to run it in a different setup, but if anything goes wrong, you're on your own"? Wouldn't that solve the still understandably overwhelming issue of supporting GNU/Linux?

From the players' side, this can't be said enough times: be civil, everyone. Videogames are not something to lose your rag about. A few immature and impatient people costed all of us a native port of The Witcher 3. We may be just 0,5%, but we have the potential to be the best userbase when it comes to giving devs useful feedback.

Quoting: liamdaweI understand what you're saying, as I said I'm pretty sad about it, but when you're literally unable to provide the service people expect because of Unity and GPU driver bugs (both of which are confirmed issues with Unity and NVIDIA I might add) - is it right to say it's supported and continue advertising it, to let people down when they buy it?

To be clear on my comments, up until just now there were all posted before Garry made the Twitter statements. Obviously I'm not impressed if they weren't doing any QA.

As I already mention to Neon, I think that it could be understandable to stop supporting a platform if you find out that it's not profitable (that's the way economy works, unfortunately), but the Unity and Nvidia bug are mere excuses. Stating that he never did QA to our platform just shows us that their product managers are kinda mediocre, you cannot expect to have a product that works well without QA (in software development this is a KEY practice), not to mention that is very stupid to say that customers are "demanding, rude, abusive" when you release a product without QA.

As others already mention, many others devs were able to release on Linux their products with less resources (I recall Everspace release process as an example, not showing SteamOS icon until they could give the QA they expected in their product). Hate to say it, but you keep justifying this when there is no justification. All the statements of this guy just shows me that he has a very mediocre development process and he kinda cheated to Linux buyers.

Quoting: svartalf

Quoting: LeopardFacepunch dev clearly states he won't / he wasn't doing a QA regarding Linux builds. And you're saying that is understandable due to low market share.

There's a reason why I've been commenting on this.

The whole, we're not/won't do QA is bullshit. Pure and simple. QA is a function of the product as a whole. If you're not doing proper QA on all of it, you're doing it wrong. On an engine like Unity, Unreal, Crytek, etc. you exchange a bit of peak performance for an abstraction layer. Pure and simple. It's supposed to be almost largely 1 GAME that way. But there's potential for failures in the engine if someone hasn't exercised it properly on the target in question. That equates engineering analysis on that target to be fed back to the engine developer so they can fix it or incorporate the fixes YOU found when digging a bit deeper. You should have a moderately dedicated staff to DO that work and be able to handle any of the platforms and be able to do it as needed and per priority. If they don't have time to do that, what are they facing under Windows?

But it does require work on things. If they can't and won't do the work...was it really all that good a game?

I'd opine, "NOT".

Is it a symptom of much worse going on? Yeah...actually, it is.

Quoting: LeopardThan it must be also true for all devs too , since market share is not specific to Rust. It is on nearly every game.

Hardly. I need only point to myself or the likes of Feral Interactive to show that this was bullshit.

Which is why I am bitching right now about all of this. It's lame on their part, really. Someone earlier on pinned it. Facepunch thought they could just click a button and crank out Linux binaries and not QA it at all. Heh. If you're not as much engineering driven, you're in for a nasty, nasty surprise. I'll bet they're overwhelmed with the WINDOWS bugs.

I was saying that if we take Liam's thinking out of small box words , conclusion is this. Games should only support big platforms , not more.

Which i disagree as a Linux user.

Liam's words are probably said because afraid of a new " The Witcher 2 " hate wave and aims to calming down.

I don't think he has bad intentions , but in the end that kind of thinking could easily lead to " actually , we didn't deserve any of this at first place " so that was the normal thing that supposed to happen.

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: svartalf

Quoting: LeopardFacepunch dev clearly states he won't / he wasn't doing a QA regarding Linux builds. And you're saying that is understandable due to low market share.

There's a reason why I've been commenting on this.

The whole, we're not/won't do QA is bullshit. Pure and simple. QA is a function of the product as a whole. If you're not doing proper QA on all of it, you're doing it wrong. On an engine like Unity, Unreal, Crytek, etc. you exchange a bit of peak performance for an abstraction layer. Pure and simple. It's supposed to be almost largely 1 GAME that way. But there's potential for failures in the engine if someone hasn't exercised it properly on the target in question. That equates engineering analysis on that target to be fed back to the engine developer so they can fix it or incorporate the fixes YOU found when digging a bit deeper. You should have a moderately dedicated staff to DO that work and be able to handle any of the platforms and be able to do it as needed and per priority. If they don't have time to do that, what are they facing under Windows?

But it does require work on things. If they can't and won't do the work...was it really all that good a game?

I'd opine, "NOT".

Is it a symptom of much worse going on? Yeah...actually, it is.

Quoting: LeopardThan it must be also true for all devs too , since market share is not specific to Rust. It is on nearly every game.

Hardly. I need only point to myself or the likes of Feral Interactive to show that this was bullshit.

Which is why I am bitching right now about all of this. It's lame on their part, really. Someone earlier on pinned it. Facepunch thought they could just click a button and crank out Linux binaries and not QA it at all. Heh. If you're not as much engineering driven, you're in for a nasty, nasty surprise. I'll bet they're overwhelmed with the WINDOWS bugs.

I was saying that if we take Liam's thinking out of small box words , conclusion is this. Games should only support big platforms , not more.

Which i disagree as a Linux user.

Liam's words are probably said because afraid of a new " The Witcher 2 " hate wave and aims to calming down.

I don't think he has bad intentions , but in the end that kind of thinking could easily lead to " actually , we didn't deserve any of this at first place " so that was the normal thing that supposed to happen.

I feel like you repeatedly and intentionally misrepresent what I say and I'm not sure why.

Let me make it perfectly fucking clear: At no point have I said games should only support big platforms, this site wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be here if so. I'm really doing my best to be polite with you, but you're making it very difficult at this point. Why the heck would I even be here, promoting Linux gaming nearly every single day if I thought so? It's as if you write a lot of your comments, without even using the slightest bit of your brain sometimes.

I want as many games as possible to support Linux.

It sucks that Unity and NVIDIA have caused issues (and to be clear again, those issues and confirmed by both) and it also sucks that Facepunch apparently didn't do QA and no I'm not amused by that either.

Quoting: wleoncioFrom the players' side, this can't be said enough times: be civil, everyone. Videogames are not something to lose your rag about. A few immature and impatient people costed all of us a native port of The Witcher 3. We may be just 0,5%, but we have the potential to be the best userbase when it comes to giving devs useful feedback.

I think you're going to find that this was an excuse, not reality in the case of Cdprojekt. They had a lot of difficulties with their "solution" that had legitimate complaints thrown at them over it. This was a differing example of someone thinking they could all but simply click a button and magically have a game without a lot of QA (If you think the woes there with the game "port" they did had much of any QA, I've some lovely land out West of where I'm currently day-job consulting (Ft. Lauderdale) that's "dry" and only has a few gators on it...PROMISE. X-D

They got it fixed, but not before a lot of goodwill on their was burned. They were dubious about it in the first place- and the ire was just the excuse they needed to not do another one. Half-hearted efforts using WINE-like layers unless you've got the thing dead on like Feral's got with some of those, well...it's not good for the studio or their customers. It just pooches the prospects on both sides...and blaming the upset, and legitimately so, customers about it; or the ones asking for a new version (Hey, you did that other one...) is mudslinging the OTHER way. I don't consider THAT acceptable either.

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: svartalf

Quoting: LeopardFacepunch dev clearly states he won't / he wasn't doing a QA regarding Linux builds. And you're saying that is understandable due to low market share.

There's a reason why I've been commenting on this.

The whole, we're not/won't do QA is bullshit. Pure and simple. QA is a function of the product as a whole. If you're not doing proper QA on all of it, you're doing it wrong. On an engine like Unity, Unreal, Crytek, etc. you exchange a bit of peak performance for an abstraction layer. Pure and simple. It's supposed to be almost largely 1 GAME that way. But there's potential for failures in the engine if someone hasn't exercised it properly on the target in question. That equates engineering analysis on that target to be fed back to the engine developer so they can fix it or incorporate the fixes YOU found when digging a bit deeper. You should have a moderately dedicated staff to DO that work and be able to handle any of the platforms and be able to do it as needed and per priority. If they don't have time to do that, what are they facing under Windows?

But it does require work on things. If they can't and won't do the work...was it really all that good a game?

I'd opine, "NOT".

Is it a symptom of much worse going on? Yeah...actually, it is.

Quoting: LeopardThan it must be also true for all devs too , since market share is not specific to Rust. It is on nearly every game.

Hardly. I need only point to myself or the likes of Feral Interactive to show that this was bullshit.

Which is why I am bitching right now about all of this. It's lame on their part, really. Someone earlier on pinned it. Facepunch thought they could just click a button and crank out Linux binaries and not QA it at all. Heh. If you're not as much engineering driven, you're in for a nasty, nasty surprise. I'll bet they're overwhelmed with the WINDOWS bugs.

I was saying that if we take Liam's thinking out of small box words , conclusion is this. Games should only support big platforms , not more.

Which i disagree as a Linux user.

Liam's words are probably said because afraid of a new " The Witcher 2 " hate wave and aims to calming down.

I don't think he has bad intentions , but in the end that kind of thinking could easily lead to " actually , we didn't deserve any of this at first place " so that was the normal thing that supposed to happen.

I feel like you repeatedly and intentionally misrepresent what I say and I'm not sure why.

Let me make it perfectly fucking clear: At no point have I said games should only support big platforms, this site wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be here if so. I'm really doing my best to be polite with you, but you're making it very difficult at this point. Why the heck would I even be here, promoting Linux gaming nearly every single day if I thought so? It's as if you write a lot of your comments, without even using the slightest bit of your brain sometimes.

I want as many games as possible to support Linux.

It sucks that Unity and NVIDIA have caused issues (and to be clear again, those issues and confirmed by both) and it also sucks that Facepunch apparently didn't do QA and no I'm not amused by that either.

Why are you always insulting?

I was not saying anything bad either , why all that fury in your comments?

I'm not accusing you either , just saying that " We need to protect devs from outraging Linux users for the sake of Linux gaming , so let's be much more careful with our words " attitude is not always welcome. We have grown ( mentally ) a bit as you can see , so rather that blowing up to the devs , we are blowing out to each other here like you did just now.

Quoting: liamdaweI'm just deciding not to take it as personally as some are. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've always been realistic about Linux gaming and some people choose to be the opposite.

Totally understand things can get emotional, but I won't have people call out my integrity for not sending abuse to a developer.

I'm all for giving leeway to devs who make a good faith effort, but I'm not for letting anyone walk all over us just for showing nominal support. Linux needs software to grow, but it won't do any good if it doesn't actually work. We can disagree on where to draw the line, or where on the spectrum this specific case lies, but I don't think I'm "unrealistic," and I don't think it's reasonable to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as such.

I also think it's unreasonable to conflate any and all criticism of the devs with "sending abuse."


Last edited by Smoke39 on 27 July 2018 at 9:51 pm UTC

Quoting: Smoke39I also think it's unreasonable to conflate any and all criticism of the devs as "sending abuse."

Criticism where it's due is fine, I criticise issues in games all the time. I'm sure you really know the types of things I'm talking about.