Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation inches closer to a Linux release with Vulkan

Quoting: TcheySo, alright, i'm keeping it i guess.

Actually, the perf are not so good. It runs well with everything on Low, but that's it.
Also, sounds are sometimes glitchy.

But worst, i don't really enjoy it, and i find SupComFA way more superior.

So, still no decent RTS for me, but (excellentissimic) oldy SupComFA perfectly fine via Proton.

Quoting: mylkanot the best idea to use an unsupported OS. also must be a very old PC (i know winxp has a higher market share on steam than linux)
win7 doesnt even support new CPUs. AMD and NVIDIA wont make new drivers for win7 in 2020

Not always. Ryzen CPUS will continue to support Win7 for a few years yet. Third party security apps can fill the gap. But for practical purposes you can keep an OS running until they stop issuing graphics drivers for it. Win7 is my cutoff line. I will never own a system with a newer version of Windows than that, and I don't even have that any longer. But the people that do are still easily able to get by with it and not have to worry about hassles like Microsoft deciding to update their system while they are using it.

Quoting: jarhead_hWell, maybe they think there's a bunch of RTS players in the linux ecosystem and want to sell copies. The economics of different genres really are different. Stardock was one of the first devs to go DRM-free, and the reason they said that they did so is because no one steals RTS games. The pirates steal the hell out of shooters, but not strategy games.

Quoting: mylkawhy stealing? i dont think piracy is a big issue on linux. i know there are some linux games on warez sites, but they are mostly from gog.
rust also is a MP game. dont know if you can play a cracked copy online.

Piracy isn't an issue on Linux, because we barely get anything to pirate, and when we do we're so happy to be able to pay for whatever it is that we do so. But that's not what I'm talking about. Fans of real-time strategy games tend to be a different type of person than a shooter fan who is in turn a different type of person from a car racing fan and so on. Real time strategy games don't get pirated at anywhere near the rate as shooters do, presumably meaning that RTS fans are more willing to buy than steal. Stardock picked up on that years and years ago, and stopped using DRM in their games because the people that liked their games were going to pay for them, but at the same time the guy in charge said that if Stardock made shooters there was no way they'd take that approach.

"We still have a long, long way to go..."

That's not an encouraging sign. It sounds like they're still in the range of years before this sees a release. Stardock should have worked towards a simultaneous release with Windows, which would have gotten them in on the ground floor of Linux gaming when there was less competition. As it is, I think this game has long passed its "sell by" date.

Quoting: jarhead_hPiracy isn't an issue on Linux, because we barely get anything to pirate, and when we do we're so happy to be able to pay for whatever it is that we do so.

Things have certainly changed. I can still remember when the majority of Linux users insisted that everything should be free and effectively drove commercial developers away from Linux with rampant piracy.

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: jarhead_h

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: pete910To be honest I hope they optimise the **** out of their Vulkan render to show DX12 up :D

No qualms in waiting for the Linux port if that's what they do!

Their Vulkan renderer has been available for a while on Windows as an alternative to d3d12, and IIRC performance is similar. Great for Windows 7 users who don't have access to d3d12.

And I think that's actually kind of the point. Microsoft will never backport DX12 to Win7/8 but the truth is with Vulkan it's not needed. As long as drivers keep showing up supporting Win7/8 Vulkan can keep people from having to switch to M$'s bloated spyware.

no one uses win8 and win7 support ends with 2019, so its pointless to make vulkan, because they have it on win7. no one will officially support win7 in 2020 because it is a security risk.
todays VULKAN in 2015, when win10 came out could have change developers minds, but now is too late

but VULKAN is still open source and the switch already has it. maybe the new playstation supports vulkan. that could make a difference. it should be easier to port games from PS to PC

Gave me a good laugh. Because games stopped to support XP when it ran out of support. The game devs will go with whatever the target audience is using. They could not care less for security risks their customer has anyway.

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: jarhead_h

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: pete910To be honest I hope they optimise the **** out of their Vulkan render to show DX12 up :D

No qualms in waiting for the Linux port if that's what they do!

Their Vulkan renderer has been available for a while on Windows as an alternative to d3d12, and IIRC performance is similar. Great for Windows 7 users who don't have access to d3d12.

And I think that's actually kind of the point. Microsoft will never backport DX12 to Win7/8 but the truth is with Vulkan it's not needed. As long as drivers keep showing up supporting Win7/8 Vulkan can keep people from having to switch to M$'s bloated spyware.

no one uses win8 and win7 support ends with 2019, so its pointless to make vulkan, because they have it on win7. no one will officially support win7 in 2020 because it is a security risk.
todays VULKAN in 2015, when win10 came out could have change developers minds, but now is too late

but VULKAN is still open source and the switch already has it. maybe the new playstation supports vulkan. that could make a difference. it should be easier to port games from PS to PC

Gave me a good laugh. Because games stopped to support XP when it ran out of support. The game devs will go with whatever the target audience is using. They could not care less for security risks their customer has anyway.

you know there is a difference between "support" and "still work"
some software still work on winxp, that doesnt mean, that i get any support for it

of course software will still work on win7. btw there is extended support for win7, but that costs money and is only for companies

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

This is why Linux has gotten a lot more support from indie developers than from the major video game publishers. They want every sale they can get. On Windows, this is just another RTS, but on Linux it might be the RTS.

Still, I'm not sure that porting a title that's been out for this long and seems to be this much work would make the additional sales of this game by itself worth it, but if they are planning more releases with the same engine, that may be all the incentive they need.

Quoting: CFWhitmanOn Windows, this is just another RTS, but on Linux it might be the RTS.

Maybe for some people it could be, but I can think of a whole bunch of RTS games that we already have and are much more interesting.

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: CFWhitmanOn Windows, this is just another RTS, but on Linux it might be the RTS.

Maybe for some people it could be, but I can think of a whole bunch of RTS games that we already have and are much more interesting.

In that case, perhaps it won't do that well on Linux either (I've never played it, so I have no idea how good it is). Still, any potential it does have is more likely to get noticed among the fewer games that are available to Linux users. I'm sure the developers want to believe they have made a good game, and are hoping they can find an audience who will agree with them.

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

It is not that big companies do not want more money, it is more like big companies are way more conservative to anything that they think is risky. It seems to me that they are like a big ship, even if an island is literally on their way they are likely to prefer to just avoid it.

Quoting: lucinos

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

It is not that big companies do not want more money, it is more like big companies are way more conservative to anything that they think is risky. It seems to me that they are like a big ship, even if an island is literally on their way they are likely to prefer to just avoid it.

is it really a risk, if feral makes a living with just porting games?
lets take tomb raider. this game is already 50% off and it runs with proton and they still make a linux version, so they are gonna make more money, than it costs... i guess
ubisoft, rockstar, bethesda,etc have so many sales and i am sure they also would sell a lot of copies on linux

Quoting: mylkalets take tomb raider. this game is already 50% off and it runs with proton and they still make a linux version

I tried the demo on Proton and while it works, it's not exactly great. I wouldn't play the entire game like that. I had a few crashes and pretty bad performance. Feral will deliver a much better experience with their port and I fully intend to buy it whenever they release it.

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: mylkalets take tomb raider. this game is already 50% off and it runs with proton and they still make a linux version

I tried the demo on Proton and while it works, it's not exactly great. I wouldn't play the entire game like that. I had a few crashes and pretty bad performance. Feral will deliver a much better experience with their port and I fully intend to buy it whenever they release it.

and till then its 60% off and they still make enough money
rise of the tomb raider came to linux 2,5yrs after release. it was 10€ in wintersale. 30% to steam and maybe some % to enix. lets say feral makes 5€ per copy and then they have to pay taxes.
i really dont know how they make enough money, but obviously they do, so a linux port cant be that expensive

if feral can exist by porting "old" games to linux, i cant see why it would be a risk to port gta6, far cry 6, wolfenstein 3, cyberpunk to linux. maybe with day 1 linux support like tropico 6

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

It's not that big companies don't want to make more money. It's that big companies like maximum return on investment. If they are already making a lot of money, they start to care more about profit percentage than total profit. Smaller companies can't afford that luxury.

Really though, it doesn't matter that much why smaller publishers care more about diversifying their audience. The fact that smaller publishers are more likely to support Linux is fairly obvious when you go to buy a game.

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

Still ActiVision/Vivendi(Blizzard), EA, Ubisoft, et al seem to not want more money... even though Square Enix has shown good faith examples.

Quoting: Thetargos

Quoting: mylka

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: mylkathis game doesnt even have 200 players and is almost 3yrs old

https://steamdb.info/app/507490/graphs/

why are they making a linux port?

i am not complaining, but i dont get it. RUST has over 40.000 players and they drop linux support
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/graphs/

ARMA 3
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/graphs/
over 12000.... dropped linux

i just dont get it

In my experience, publishers with smaller audiences are more likely to seek additional buyers on other systems. If a game has 40,000 players, the publisher says, "Who needs Linux? We've got 40,000 players. Cancelling support will alienate Linux users? Meh, who cares? It's not worth the support headache." On the other hand if a game has 1,500 players, the publisher says, "Where else can we look for buyers? Will Linux and/or Mac support really cost us that much more?"

what you are saying is big companies dont want more money.
that makes no sense to me.

Still ActiVision/Vivendi(Blizzard), EA, Ubisoft, et al seem to not want more money... even though Square Enix has shown good faith examples.

They're too busy implementing gambling mechanics and micro-transactions into their games to care about Linux. That's sadly where the big money is. Yes, it's dystopia.