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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kokoko3k...but how would you prove you still want to play that game on that specific, no more supported, platform and not just having enough of it and want to regain the money?

Refunds for everyone asking when one platform is discarded?

Valve knows what platform you've been playing on.
If someone asks for a refund who played the game for a while but never on a dropped platform, they don't get the refund.

But 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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

...but how would you prove you still want to play that game on that specific, no more supported, platform and not just having enough of it and want to regain the money?

Refunds for everyone asking when one platform is discarded? I see no other way, maybe a partial refund would be a fair compromise, but again, how much?

Edit:
Maybe Valve could put a minimum time devs are enforced to support all the platforms they advertised at launch or refund everyone asking, but i fear that any of the option I listed would simply scare developers and just kill the little market we have today.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah, better wait that paying for a broken software.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dude

Quoting: KristianIs there any reason this would not run or would run comparatively badly on a Steam Deck?

Not really. Considering the ongoing improvement and optimizations with emulators, the Deck will be great.

I dubt it would be enough powerfull on the cpu side, but i hope to be really wrong

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lejimsterIt's running Arch as much as Manjaro is running Arch. The Arch wiki will be still extremely relevant. I don't expect Valve will deviate too far away from it's roots. Maybe it will have specific tested drivers and some bleeding edge kernel patches that benefit the Deck and haven't made into the mainline Kernel yet.

Absolutely,but that does not mean that the deck will "pull the updates quicker", as stated by the article, because it will use different repos, (i hope) i think.
Also, pacman does not imply rolling release; Arch does.
And yes, the wiki would be useful as long as the packages are built by the same PKGBUILDs used on Arch, but this could not be true,the deps could be different, so that you can have packages compiled with different features and the wiki may be misleading.
The final user has to know that it will be 'based' on arch, not 'powered by', as previously wrote on the main article.
Just as Manjaro.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have to point out that it is "powered by Arch Linux" in the sense that is only "Based" on it.
It is *not* running Arch, so any issue an user would have with the new Steamos will have no support at all by Arch Linux community,

View this comment - View article - View full comments