Turnip Boy Commits Tax Evasion has dropped Linux support (updated)

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kokoko3kBut it can't read my mind, and doesn't have a clue if I want to continue playing that game or i'm just speculating.

If you are asking for a refund via the normal "request refund" on Steam, you don't want to continue playing.
That's pretty much a given.

I'm unable to make my point clear enough, sorry, english is not my primary language.
Say I'm a Linux user sick of playing the game X, or maybe i've completed it; I've always played on Linux.
X stop supporting Linux, i receive money because they stop supporting my platform, even if i would'nt have played X anyway.
YAY free game for me!
Automatic refund or the need for do it manually doesn't change that.
Also:
I want to develop game X for platforms w,l,m.
Steam say me i've to continue to support w,l,m or I've to refund all the sells for the platform i will not support anymore.
What will i do? I'm not that confident that the engine i'm using to develop my game will support w.l and m in the future.
Would I risk to refund all the sells, even to people not really interested in the continued support, or maybe i will just support w and let people using l deal with it with some compatibility layer?


Last edited by kokoko3k on 28 August 2021 at 3:43 pm UTC

Quoting: kokoko3kWhat will i do?

Don't lie on your store page. If you're going to support a platform, say you'll support it. If you're not going to support a platform, don't say you will. Bait-and-switch is terrible behaviour (and is illegal in lots of places); you shouldn't be able to do it and then just keep the money, even if your game isn't as high profile as, say, Rocket League.

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: kokoko3kWhat will i do?

Don't lie on your store page. If you're going to support a platform, say you'll support it. If you're not going to support a platform, don't say you will. Bait-and-switch is terrible behaviour (and is illegal in lots of places); you shouldn't be able to do it and then just keep the money, even if your game isn't as high profile as, say, Rocket League.

Again, the support i will give could not be dependent on my will, but on third party engine i've no control over.
If i decide to not 'risk to lie', i would simply avoid the support for that platform alltogheter, and as we know that good part of the games today is built on unity and ue4, that would mean byebye native linux support in favour of the consolidation of a monopoly.
No way around it on my sight.

That's why i think that a compromise in terms of a minimum time range of ensured support could be the balanced way to go.
...or, it has to be judged case by case by Valve itself


Last edited by kokoko3k on 28 August 2021 at 5:12 pm UTC

Quoting: kokoko3kAgain, the support i will give could not be dependent on my will, but on third party engine i've no control over.

As a developer it's your choice which engine and tools you use. As a developer it's your choice if you push an update that breaks your game for your customers, and as a developer it's your responsibility to see if that's going to happen before you do it. It's not your customers', nor Valve's, fault if you're just not very good at your job, and they shouldn't have their money stolen, nor reputation tarnished, because of it.

We can do without those press the build button but never bother to actually test releases, thank you very much. If a customer chooses to risk their money on a purchase for an unsupported platform, that should be their informed choice, not the unwitting result of developer lies.

"There aren't that many of these people, so it's OK to cheat them out of their money," which is the position taken by these developers, is morally bankrupt. But, similarly, if there weren't that many people it's not going to affect the developer much when they have to give back their ill-gotten gains.


Last edited by CatKiller on 28 August 2021 at 7:09 pm UTC

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: kokoko3kAgain, the support i will give could not be dependent on my will, but on third party engine i've no control over.

As a developer it's your choice which engine and tools you use. As a developer it's your choice if you push an update that breaks your game for your customers, and as a developer it's your responsibility to see if that's going to happen before you do it. It's not your customers', nor Valve's, fault if you're just not very good at your job, and they shouldn't have their money stolen, nor reputation tarnished, because of it.

We can do without those press the build button but never bother to actually test releases, thank you very much. If a customer chooses to risk their money on a purchase for an unsupported platform, that should be their informed choice, not the unwitting result of developer lies.

"There aren't that many of these people, so it's OK to cheat them out of their money," which is the position taken by these developers, is morally bankrupt. But, similarly, if there weren't that many people it's not going to affect the developer much when they have to give back their ill-gotten gains.

Right, so let's put the following way:
Since most of developers are not so good (tm) at their job, not so much native titles will come in the future if you force them to unconditionally support Linux after launch.

Quoting: kokoko3kRight, so let's put the following way:
Since most of developers are not so good (tm) at their job, not so much native titles will come in the future if you force them to unconditionally support Linux after launch.

Why the hell should anyone be giving them money for a game they won't support? Just because they lied about it to pretend that they would? Taking money under false pretences is fraud. Those are the people you want to buy games from?

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: kokoko3kRight, so let's put the following way:
Since most of developers are not so good (tm) at their job, not so much native titles will come in the future if you force them to unconditionally support Linux after launch.

Why the hell should anyone be giving them money for a game they won't support? Just because they lied about it to pretend that they would? Taking money under false pretences is fraud. Those are the people you want to buy games from?

I give up, probably there's a language barrier here.

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: kokoko3kRight, so let's put the following way:
Since most of developers are not so good (tm) at their job, not so much native titles will come in the future if you force them to unconditionally support Linux after launch.

Why the hell should anyone be giving them money for a game they won't support? Just because they lied about it to pretend that they would? Taking money under false pretences is fraud. Those are the people you want to buy games from?

I give up, probably there's a language barrier here.

Allow me to clarify, IIUC, kokokk's point is that even if the developer truly wants to support the platform and even if they honestly will try their best, forcing them like suggested may scare them so much they would decide not to take the risk.

Quoting: CatKillerSince developers like this suck so much at customer service, Valve should force them to do better: give automatic refunds to affected customers, to make them whole, and withhold revenue until the cost of that has been recovered. That's what other retailers do. I'm only ever going to buy a handful of games from any particular game dev, but I buy hundreds overall from Steam; my confidence in buying things on Steam becomes less every time a developer pulls this kind of scam, which harms Valve.

Right! I see people on here saying they're bad at software development. That may or may not be true, but what's definitely true is that they lack "soft skills." They don't know how to treat customers right and don't seem to care.

Quoting: ShabbyXAllow me to clarify, IIUC, kokokk's point is that even if the developer truly wants to support the platform and even if they honestly will try their best, forcing them like suggested may scare them so much they would decide not to take the risk.

They wouldn't be forced to support anything. They'd just have to give the money back if they lied about providing support when they don't, rather than just keeping it.

To put it another way: if you've written on your store page that you're going to support a platform, to entice customers on that platform to give you money, but you are unable or unwilling to provide that support, why should you get to keep the money?


Last edited by CatKiller on 29 August 2021 at 3:05 pm UTC