Eggnut decide not to bring Backbone to Linux officially

Moebius

Isn't it a Zachotronic game?

I meant Jane Jensen's adventure game (not Mobius Front '83):
https://store.steampowered.com/app/264520/Moebius_Empire_Rising/

I will admit, some of the responses here aren't very pleasant: if I were a dev and saw all this, I would be quite put off to even bother with a GNU/Linux version in the first place.

What a nice example of tone policing. Why do you belittle people for having emotions about a topic at hand?

Second, we are adults here, devs are also adults, I believe that they are as bitter about their failure as we are(unless they planned to not support linux), so they might be more understanding than you think. And if they don't, why should I care about their feelings, when they apparently didn't care about mine, when they canceled linux port?

Also worst case scenario is that they create another Kickstarter, promise linux port and not deliver it again.
For me promising linux port when they know they have no expertise to make it happen is dishonesty, so them not promising it is the only honest thing they can do. I'm refraining from using word "lying" because I'm not sure if they were aware of their inadequacies, so I give them benefit of doubt. But if they were competent at what they were doing, they would address it from beginning. Also complaining about 3rd part packages not having linux support when you hand picked them from the beginning (they knew they were obligated to provide linux port) is not a great excuse. You just sabotaged yourself for no reason.[Picture of a guy putting stick into front wheel of a bike he rides on]

There should be consequences for overhyping/overpromising in gaming industry, developers in this case are not the only ones that made statements that later were proven false(eg. Peter Molyneux).

I think you're kind of proving my point: seems I'm not allowed to have an opinion on what I perceive as toxicity, and what kind of community do you think that creates? If this is the responses seen to anything less than perfect, what developer would bother with that community to begin with?

Developers aren't some mystical, magical being. They're ordinary people. And I know of many who have simply walked away from GNU/Linux not because of any technical reason, but because of the stress they're put under for any perceived slight - even when the perceived slight is just entirely made up.

And I'm actually a little curious, coincidentally (but actually unintentionally) leading on from the last sentence: where did Eggnut complain about 3rd party packages not having GNU/Linux support?

I'm always taking side with developers regarding toxic behaviour. (I'm not sure if that's partly because I'm a developer, too. I don't really think so, decent behaviour is always good.) But I don't think this is such a case.

You're aware that Linux support has been part of the Kickstarter? People have been giving money based on this promise. This story does not start with people being unhappy and expressing their unhappiness, this story starts with a working Linux prologue, with the developers promising a Linux version, people giving money due to the promise and actually seeing a working Linux prologue - and the developers breaking their promise. So, as long as people keep it civil, people are totally entitled to be unhappy and express their unhappiness.




Yes, developers are humans, too, and I don't get tired to say so, but when humans make such mistakes, they totally should be aware that they disappoint people and be able to cope with disappointment being expressed.

And no, I don't think this will turn away developers from supporting Linux. It might turn away developers from promising more than they are able or willing to deliver - which is a good thing, not a bad one in my eyes.

What has gone wrong here? Either the developers changed much of their system (like, the engine) without caring for Linux support or they didn't watch Linux runnability during the whole development. Both something I'm not happy about. Something to learn from.


Last edited by Eike on 12 February 2022 at 12:48 pm UTC

Yeah, entirely aware of how things started and that a prologue did exist. Maybe they thought changes later wouldn't impact much, or maybe there are a lot of issues with the prologue that they know about but couldn't iron out. Not really the point - they couldn't get a release done, offering refunds, what more could they really do?

Afterwards? Offering refunds and an apology and maybe an actual explanation. I don't expect them to put all their money and lives into the port.

Before? Keeping the working state alive during the whole development process. If you don't test it, it ain't gonna work.

There is risk that what is being backed will simply not turn out - and that's something which absolutely people can be unhappy and disgruntled about, but some of the vitriol I've been reading is a little excessive and I don't think paints a good image.

I might have overlooked stuff. Worst I saw is people wanting to avoid the developers in future, which is ok in my book. (I don't the devs will make the same mistake again - probably by not promising Linux versions again, so it's not a big thing for both sides I guess.)

However, as you say, what has gone wrong here? I really hope that could be focused on. GNU/Linux gaming is small, and there's a lot of areas that desperately need improvement. I'm always hopeful more information is forthcoming from developers about why they had to drop part of any plan to support GNU/Linux, but equally I can understand why they might want to refrain from doing so.

Twice yes, that would be nice to read, and I could understand why they wouldn't write it.

Eh, maybe it's just me and I should be the one to walk away entirely from any community areas.

I don't think so. And I still want to believe that this corner is among the nice ones in the net.

This is something I see quite a fair bit of: not keeping things alive during development, porting at the end. I have to keep wondering why that's so much the case. Surely it can't always be something like not have a spare machine about, and it seems reasonable to expect at least firing up a GNU/Linux distro if a game is going to try be released on the platform, but why isn't it a part of the normal workflow from the get-go?

I guess there are enough Windows developers too afraid of even installing Linux. Or the triple described lately, the story teller, the graphics and the sound person, that just don't feel computer literate enough. Of course, those shouldn't make such promises. Or just the developers too inexperienced to expect problems arising later. "I'll just press the magic button!" Yeah, just guesswork.

Maybe it is for many, but engine problems or GNU/Linux specific issues outside of their range of expertise make them drop it and think they can just dedicate more time to the platform once the core game is sorted. Don't know. I think there are the occasional questionnaire sent out, but can't think of any to look up right now.

I would understand this one. (And I'd also understand if/why they wouldn't want to tell that in public.) You expect the engine to do it, it doesn't, you report an error, nothing happens - that would make it (too) hard to fulfill the promise.

Kickstarter itself isn't a promise, even if it's portrayed that way.

Sure it is. Like any promise, it's about the future and subject to the vagaries of unsympathetic events. And like most promises, it's not legally binding. But it's sure as hell a promise--people go on kickstarter and they say "If we get funding X, we will totally deliver thingie Y".
So then if they don't, people will be annoyed. But also, they will assess what the people who made the promise said about why they didn't keep their promise. If someone's half an hour late and they say "I know I said I'd be on time this time, but I saw a cute dog" I'm going to be less charitable than if they say "I know I said I'd be on time but, as you've probably also noticed yourself, zombie apocalypse".

And I gotta say, the excuses given by this particular bunch seem . . . thin. When you're saying "I know we said we'd do a Linux version, but turns out we would have had to have an actual Linux development environment for that, who knew?" isn't that pretty much just "We just decided not to bother"? Dunno why you'd be expecting a charitable response given that.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 12 February 2022 at 5:48 pm UTC

What a nice example of tone policing.

Here's some tone policing: Lighten up.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 12 February 2022 at 5:47 pm UTC

It's not as if I've been waiting for this one, not my type of game. Sad to see them draw back on the Linux Support, but I think it a fair thing to offer keys for other platforms or even refund. It won't hit them much financially, and it will get them rid of the burden.

Anyway, I don't really understand it, it does not seem like a damn complex game, it's not as if they had to implement the whole render engine for linux again since they're using UE4 (don't get me wrong, UE4 has some nasty bugs to work around, especially on Linux - don't get me wrong those guys at Epic / UE are a highly skilled team, but it's more about a lack of real life application to actually get to the bugs. Unit testing and rendertests are fine - but never will cover all).

My guess is it's rather simply skill missing and wrong expectation (press a button and have a linux game, which it never ever is), or that they need to focus on the new game in the fear of running out of funds, and taking a hit from probably less than 1 % sales is more acceptable than to actually invest time or money. Which is the most likely reason, since they stated basically that they're short on money.


Last edited by STiAT on 13 February 2022 at 11:09 am UTC

Don't.

Crowdfund.

Games.



If you support a game on Kickstarter and it ends up like 99% of everything else on Kickstarter, you can't really be surprised.

I'm not entirely sure they were referring to a GNU/Linux setup for that, but rather a software development process and allocation of "resources" (i.e the time/cost of actually assigning someone to it).

That's how I read it too. Unfortunately then it turns into, "I know I took your money for this thing, but I can't get it to you because now I'm too busy taking someone else's money for something else."

Don't.

Crowdfund.

Games.



If you support a game on Kickstarter and it ends up like 99% of everything else on Kickstarter, you can't really be surprised.

Stop.

Telling.

Lies.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/crowdfunders/

Don't.

Crowdfund.

Games.



If you support a game on Kickstarter and it ends up like 99% of everything else on Kickstarter, you can't really be surprised.

Stop.

Telling.

Lies.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/crowdfunders/

Good point. Enjoy funding the next 10 "failed" or "in development" until it is no longer "in development" Linux games on Kickstarter. I'll stick to paying money for things that someone is actually obligated to deliver.

Good point. Enjoy funding the next 10 "failed" or "in development" until it is no longer "in development" Linux games on Kickstarter. I'll stick to paying money for things that someone is actually obligated to deliver.

Enjoy playing the games others have made possible on Kickstarter.


Last edited by Eike on 14 February 2022 at 7:44 am UTC

Good point. Enjoy funding the next 10 "failed" or "in development" until it is no longer "in development" Linux games on Kickstarter. I'll stick to paying money for things that someone is actually obligated to deliver.

Enjoy playing the games others have made possible on Kickstarter.

What is this? Some kind of guilt trip?

If the games are good and in line with my tastes, I will indeed enjoy them. I don't feel any kind of bad whatsoever for not backing them on a crowdfunding platform. The fact that I pay for them when they exist is enough for me, and should be enough for anyone buying any product.

What is this? Some kind of guilt trip?

If the games are good and in line with my tastes, I will indeed enjoy them. I don't feel any kind of bad whatsoever for not backing them on a crowdfunding platform. The fact that I pay for them when they exist is enough for me, and should be enough for anyone buying any product.

Well, you might admit that you're actually benefiting from those that - against your repeated explicit advice - backed Linux games in Kickstarter. You could even thank them.

I sure do: Thanks for all those who backed Linux games on Kickstarter.

What is this? Some kind of guilt trip?

If the games are good and in line with my tastes, I will indeed enjoy them. I don't feel any kind of bad whatsoever for not backing them on a crowdfunding platform. The fact that I pay for them when they exist is enough for me, and should be enough for anyone buying any product.

Well, you might admit that you're actually benefiting from those that - against your repeated explicit advice - backed Linux games in Kickstarter. You could even thank them.

I sure do: Thanks for all those who backed Linux games on Kickstarter.

What I said was if you back something on Kickstarter and it fails, you shouldn't be surprised. It happens a lot.

Also, no, I don't think I'm going to thank someone else for doing something in their own self-interest. Nobody else backed a game on Kickstarter so I could buy it on Steam. Nobody's thanked me for creating demand by buying indie games on Steam, either, and I don't expect them to.

What I said was if you back something on Kickstarter and it fails, you shouldn't be surprised. It happens a lot.

Well, according to the statistics we got here, it seems a success actually happens a lot more.

Also, no, I don't think I'm going to thank someone else for doing something in their own self-interest.

Well, if their actions help you as well... But I see you've chosen. *shrug *

What I said was if you back something on Kickstarter and it fails, you shouldn't be surprised. It happens a lot.

Well, according to the statistics we got here, it seems a success actually happens a lot more.

Also, no, I don't think I'm going to thank someone else for doing something in their own self-interest.

Well, if their actions help you as well... But I see you've chosen. *shrug *

But my actions help them, too!

The goal of developing a game is to have a game to sell when development is done. Backing a project on Kickstarter isn't even buying a copy of the game. It's giving devs money in the hopes that they will deliver, which they are *not obligated to do*. It's a supplement to the existing model, not a replacement for it. If no one anticipated demand for the game after it is finished, in the form of people like me buying games, there would be no point in a Kickstarter campaign.

But my actions help them, too!

Yes, but...
* You're not taking a risk, unlike the backers.
* For games coming from Kickstarter, your "help" wouldn't be possible without the backers' in the first place.

Thinking about it, as you seem to overestimate the risk, you should see the first point even clearer.

But my actions help them, too!

Yes, but...
* You're not taking a risk, unlike the backers.
* For games coming from Kickstarter, your "help" wouldn't be possible without the backers' in the first place.

Thinking about it, as you seem to overestimate the risk, you should see the first point even clearer.

Yet, by your logic, it isn't risky, and yet is somehow also heroic, to the point that I should be grateful for it.

Do you see how silly this is?