Quoting: ArtenTotaly irelevant. From my point of view it's just buying without legal protection from state, so everythink is based solaly on my trust in developer. Legaly kickstarter can't call it buying, but by my internal definition it's still buying.

Not irrelevant at all. Venture funding is fundamentally different from purchasing. You aren't paying for the product, you're paying to help get the product made, whether it succeeds or not. Whether it makes it to completion or not.

Crowdfunding campaigns are laid out just like an funding pitch, just with product-based rewards instead of equity in the company. We don't get to walk into the situation and redefine what venture funding is, regardless if it's done by an Venture Capitalist firm or through crowdfunding. It's the same thing, the main difference is that crowdfunding allows companies, especially small ones, to get funding for projects a VC may not want to invest in b/c it's not the hot thing right now or the returns are relatively small. Instead, crowdfunding lets us put money into a project and hope we get our return (usually a product and/or some exclusives) while taking less risk overall.

The fact that they offered refunds is a sign that they didn't want to drop the Linux version, but felt they had no other choice since Epic was refusing to fix something that they had promised to fix. And sometimes, that's just the reality of life in software dev.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: tgurrPromising something in a Kickstarter campaign and then not fulfulling the promise is another cup of tea though but at least they offer refunds.

If they'd promised it, not delivered, and not given a refund, that would be fraud, so... they had to give refunds.

No, it's not. Come on now. Backing something on crowdfunding is just that, you're backing the work, whether it gets completed or not. Your taking the exact same risk that other investors take, just with much smaller amounts of money. Hell, a crowdfunding campaign is even setup just like an investment pitch:

1. Layout the project and what the investors can plan to get "rewarded" with upon completion.
2. Layout the amount needed.
3. Provide a list of "Risks" for investing in the campaign
4. Provide updates on progress.

In the real investing world, that includes unseen changes to the scope of the project. They didn't have to offer refunds.... which speaks more to the character and intent of the change. They didn't want to drop the Linux version, but Epic forced their hand and they cannot port the game to UE5 without delaying the game for months to years (a port of that nature for a small company is not fast). So, instead, they offered refunds to players who were affected and wanted a refund.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArtenAtleast for me, it's not not buy game, but not support them on kickstarter. Is good idea buying game years before release from developer who proved he is not trustworthy?

Don't EVER PAY FOR ANYTHING ON KICKSTARTER AND ASSUME YOU'RE BUYING ANYTHING. Kickstarter is very, very clear in their notice that you are "Not preordering a product, but funding the possibility of that project being completed". It's on a big banner at the end of every project's campaign page. You are for all intensive purposes a "light" investor in the product and your return is a completed product rather than a stake in the company..... if it makes it to fruition. You are taking a risk on the project basically, not buying something.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Raaben

Quoting: CyrilYou don't start to "port" your game on Linux 1-2 months before the full release.
They never spoke about their difficulties about the Linux version, and yet they announce on the release day that there won't be Linux native, it's just dishonest.

I hate to have been right, but I called this a while back when, despite talk of progress and how in their exact words supposedly during development "Unreal Engine 4’s Linux support is in a much better state", there was no sign of a non-Windows build for any beta or early access etc. I really think they just hit the Export to Linux (and Mac) button recently and found out that they'd have to put some work into it after all.

I think this is important to note. They were originally waiting for Linux support to be in a better place on UE4 than it was. IIRC they had issues with the porting process with Everspace 1..... but you can't have an entire company, especially a small one, switch to a brand new engine on a whim, meaning they were kind of locked in at that point.

Sure, any dev team can learn a new language or tools as needed, but that takes lead time. There's a good chance that the margins on Everspace 1 didn't provide enough funds to pay devs to learn new tools and I can't imaging backers backing a kickstarter where part of the funds are to "learn" new tools

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: ArtenI'm not happy about this. I trusted them because they have xp from Everspace 1. I don't think i support Everspace 3, if they try go with it on kickstarter...

The problem is related to bugs in UE4 and Vulkan that Epic refuse to fix because they've "Moved all focus to UE5". This is not something Rockfish could've planned for.... especially if Epic originally told them they planned to fix those bugs.

Everspace 2 is fundamentally different from Everspace 1, so while the experience of porting on Everspace 1 is valuable, it may not be 100% transferable either.

Which is all irelevant. They promissed Linux support. I know they are not main reason and we can blame epic, but this is all irelevant. I dont have promiss from epic, I have promiss from them.

It's not about specific code. It's about processes. Why they didn't know about this sooner? I did not expect linux to have same priority as windows, but what I expect is t least some testing basic testing in development. If there is fundamental problem with engine, how come they only knows about it now?

This.
And as stated by Liam in the news "Despite repeatedly mentioning a Native Linux build would come, even as recently as mid February".
Come on...

I disagree. As I work in Software Development you have two competing problems as a company:

1. Make promises to get buy-in ahead of time or the project never gets off the ground.
2. You simply don't know what you don't know until you get to that point. The reality being that UE5 was not available when Everspace 2 started development and they were able to port Everspace 1 to Linux before. Imagine the surprise when you finally get to that work, only to find that the promise you had to make to get funding now no longer is viable from a technical standpoint without starting the entire project over on a new engine.... which is infeasible this late.

This issue doesn't happen as much in Tech due to the fear of customer churn on very expensive services. By comparison, once Game Devs (and Engine Devs) get their money, it's on to the next project since that up-front revenue does nothing but fade off over time. And, sadly, this part of the issue falls squarely on gamers' shoulders. As long as gamers continue to pay for things despite what GameDevs and Engine Devs do, there won't be any incentive to stop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArtenI'm not happy about this. I trusted them because they have xp from Everspace 1. I don't think i support Everspace 3, if they try go with it on kickstarter...

The problem is related to bugs in UE4 and Vulkan that Epic refuse to fix because they've "Moved all focus to UE5". This is not something Rockfish could've planned for.... especially if Epic originally told them they planned to fix those bugs.

Everspace 2 is fundamentally different from Everspace 1, so while the experience of porting on Everspace 1 is valuable, it may not be 100% transferable either.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910

Quotewith Native Linux support being cancelled as they will support it with Proton instead.

I'll skip this one then

Did you read the full reasoning? They couldn't get the game to work well in Linux with Vulkan due to Vulkan bugs in UE4. They reached out to Epic and Epic said that had no intention of fixing the issues, so they had to abandon Linux support.... can't change a game engine on launch day

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JuliusWhile it works fine on Proton, this really is quite annoying and I would have probably not Kickstarted it without the promise of native Linux support. Lets hope they make good on their promise to fully support it through Proton at least (which arguably might be better in the long run anyway).

In this case, I blame Epic for refusing to fix UE4. If we pulled crap like that - keep "selling" a product after a newer one is released, but refusing to update it, we'd be hemorrhaging customers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: buckysrevenge

Quoting: EagleDeltaIs anyone else having issues with Steam not recognizing the right analog stick properly?

Mine did that, too, but after I did the reassignment within Steam it worked just fine, even after a shutdown/reboot

Even trying to do the reassignment failed, it doesn't register the right stick at all, but some games do. It's weird.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Is anyone else having issues with Steam not recognizing the right analog stick properly?

View this comment - View article - View full comments