Quoting: CatKillerGOG's Linux-hostility means that I last gave them money in... 2017, and I have no intention of giving them more in the future. It's good to have tools to stop people's GOG libraries keeping them locked into Windows, though.

What do you mean by hostility? To me it's felt a lot more like they probably had one or two people wanting to support linux and they were cool with it, then it faded for whatever reason -- like the same people moved on from the company or something.

Honestly the Galaxy Client itself, ignoring Linux for a moment, feels mostly abandoned as it is. I believe the single person they had maintaining the integrations quit quite some time ago, and was never replaced. While they did promise Linux support, it's always felt like you often see with .Net apps -- especially around the time Galaxy was being made -- where MS loosely promised Linux support in .Net, then the next version of .Net, then just Nah but you can use 3rd party to implement the GUI, and naive promises were getting made by people/devs that didn't do their *homework. The client just isn't great; Heck, if you use "Surprise me" to have it "reveal" random games -- they're always the same games, chosen in the same order, every time you restart the client.

My point is Galaxy itself feels low priority, and very loosely managed. Very much feels like people "feeling like doing this or that", and the someone that felt like doing linux things is... probably not even there anymore?

*: You'd see the same exact thing with stretch goals in KS projects promising Linux support, because their game engine claimed to support it; And again, failed to do their homework only to find out later they actually had to put effort in, and likely plan and develop from day one so they make good choices. Then you'd see "Blah blah not worth the effort (we made bad decisions but this is a popular excuse right?)" and they just don't do it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: amataiI have a mixed feeling about Flatpack. I have the impression it tries to replace package repositery whereas the problem is that distribution repository should be extended.
We don't need flatpack or snap or whatever for Mozzila, Gnome or KDE softwares. The FOSS software from highly trusted source are the easiest things to maintain on distribution repo. Flathub should be mostly commercial or more obscure FOSS project and software store app should be able to mix distro software when it makes the most sense and packaged software.

Agreed, and maybe I'm just old and bitter about things changing, but I strongly blame the popularity of rolling distributions (Looking at you, Arch). Not that rolling distributions are a new concept or anything, but they didn't used to be so mainstream/popular. Frankly, most people never needed the latest and greatest packages/ABIs at all times, and repositories were awesome -- and used to be a hugely touted benefit over the competition (Windows).

Frankly, with snaps, flats, and appimages I dare say Linux has become kind of a pain in the ass lately. Even debs/rpms are rarely distributed via repository anymore, often just being resources alongside things like appimages in github releases. The only things that aren't annoying these days are base system packages, because they're updated and distributed via repositories.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I just wish software managers would be more transparent about who packages various flats. I've seen a lot of talk when people tell others to just install flats, and they think they're official and that's just the way to do it. Sometimes it's even true.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: eldakingThis kind of thing pisses me off immensely for a few reasons.

1) This is the big one: when they made the game, Obsidian was an indie studio with limited resources, that had a very successful crowdfunding campaign but still a lot of risk. But they have since been bought by Microsoft, one of the biggest companies on the world. There is absolutely no excuse to not give proper support to some people, it is all greed and dishonesty. "Oh but it is not profitable" - yeah after-release support often is, you still have to do it. Didn't want to pay for Linux support, should not have bought a company with Linux games
2) Making the entire game work on Linux in the first place is a (potentially) huge task, and adding Linux as a new platform implies taking on a new responsibility, so sure if you want to focus on the main release and leave it as an extra it is understandable. But "porting" the updates is the opposite - it is something you already committed to.
3) They picked an engine with Linux support. Sure they built a lot on top of it (I think they did some pretty big extensions to the engine iirc), but it is not like they would have to port the entire engine again just for a few fixes. Sure it is still not trivial, but it is one less thing for them to blame.
4) I don't care if Linux players are few, every single player has a very reasonably expectation of good support. Even if a problem only affects one person, as a "paying customer" that person should be able to reach customer support and get it sorted out (if at all possible). "Sorry we won't fix our fabrication defect because there aren't enough people affected, so you'll have to cope with your defective product" is not acceptable. It is a Linux game, they need to support their Linux customers.

Agreed, this has Microsoft stink all over it. Probably can't get project management approval, or worse, the talent that did the linux portion no longer works for the company or something. Doesn't really matter if Obsidian wants to do it, that's not how big corpos work.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: kerossinWell, I think why people get angry is because most mods aren't done for profit but out of love for the characters and stories, and just to have fun. Same for users of mods, they like the characters and want to have fun but then when Nintendo or whoever comes in and says "you'll enjoy Mario when I'll allow you to" it sounds like a big "F you" to the fans.

Yeah I'd say this hits the nail on the head, whether a company is legally in the right is not what the people who complain care about, it is more-so ethically and the intent and time people spent on those addons, I guess people go to legal as you can't really argue about ethics as ethics are opinionated and you can't disprove/argue with an opinion (you can argue with one but it'd be pointless).

I think Garry Newman was addressing that perspective specifically, honestly. Or rather, he's commenting on the different perspectives and that "back when" it was a different time and people wouldn't be upset (generally speaking, anyway) since they knew they were in a grey area to begin with.

Some companies are obviously cool with it, but that's the trick isn't it? It's their choice to be cool with it, it's also their choice not to be. Point being, it's their choice to make and that's fair.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I mean, people need to remember that Kickstarter isn't a store. When you send money you haven't bought anything really, not in the sense that it's for goods anyway.

No, what you're really doing is something closer to gambling. Could be Gatcha and you get something else, could be something less then you expected for your tier level at the higher-stakes table, might be exactly what you hoped and you "win", might be nothing at all and you "lose". Might take 10 years instead of 6 months. Point is, all of these should be expected potential outcomes. It's a gamble, and if you're not comfortable with it, pay for it when it comes out instead. A lot of projects don't even give discounts to backers anymore and you're basically paying retail/pre-order prices for games that aren't even made yet.

Stretch goals for Linux/Mac should almost never be believed. I can practically guarantee the majority of the ones that promise that as stretch goals are vaguely aware that Unity, or .Net whatever, and/or their engine of choice has "linux" support and think that with some extra effort they could figure out how to build for the extra platforms. They don't realize until mid-development that that was a bad assumption and that they needed to target the other platforms from the beginning so they make better, more compatible, choices. Frankly, some of the blame absolutely lies with engines/frameworks that lead people to believe that in the first place. If you do want to believe it, it's probably best to pay attention whether the developer has a history of actually releasing things on those platforms.

Personally I do still use Kickstarter, but I back selectively and only when I'm of the mindset of wanting to support something. I would like a return, but I don't necessarily expect it - a little mental trick to "not be mad, bro". Though if they don't deliver, you can bet I wouldn't trust them again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, a reasonable opinion on the internet. Smart guy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CyborgZetaProbably a controversial opinion, but multiplatform is the way to go these days. Exclusives no longer make sense to me. They were fun back in the 6th Gen Console generation and earlier, but just seem old-fashioned today.

The only problem with that outlook is the first-party exclusives tend to be the AAA show piece system sellers, which also tend to be the strong single-player narrative games, ala Horizon Zero Dawn. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the justification for companies to continue to make games like that if exclusives (at least of that nature) stop being a thing.

Honestly, the recent Microsoft business is a good example of not needing or wanting strong AAA system sellers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well this sounds like terrible news. I imagine they're just copying all the other big ones now, which is focus on only their biggest existing franchises and get rid of everything else.

Oh, and that means biggest in terms of revenue. Not the most popular franchises, critically acclaimed, and/or AAA titles. Expect live service, mobile, and other garbage to win the day while many, many, jobs are lost.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kokoko3kSomebody can explain me why they sold themselves in the first place?

Were they forced somehow?

According to what I read earlier this morning they were in some sort of financial trouble, though at least what I read didn't really give any details. It probably also pays to remember that they didn't actually sell to Microsoft, they sold themselves to Zenimax/Bethesda, so were in turn aquired by Microsoft that way.

Yup, buy these companies for for their portfolios and brands, and the talent pool goes into resource management hell.

View this comment - View article - View full comments