Since they were awesome enough to make a single-player without time pressure plus a tutorial and everything - and it works on Linux even on beta - I went ahead and tried it. Really nice! I hadn't touched anything MOBA-related ever since it was called "DotA" and I played it (on lan-houses) with my friends because of peer pressure. But this feels like an actually fun little game, and it isn't as wonky as the autochess mod.

But what shocked me was how popular it is for something that just released in early access. Reportedly it already got more players than Artifact ever had (peak players). Yeah, it is free to play, it builds on an already successful mod, Artifact flopped due to the monetization model, but even so... cardgames are also popular, with Hearthstone and Magic Arena for example, and Artifact had a lot going on for it.

Personally, Android: Netrunner has ruined other cardgames for me. It is so much better and unique, all those other games feel the same with their creature cards... and, ironically, the original version of Netrunner was designed by Richard Garfield, that also created the much more successful (but less interesting) Magic the Gathering and the huge flop that was Artifact.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is a terrible move in general, and not for games specifically. As outdated as it is, 32-bit is still used by current software; so they aren't just breaking backwards compatibility, they are making the distro incompatible with lots of software. Maybe people shouldn't be making 32-bit software now... but Ubuntu is just one distro of a minority desktop OS; do they seriously think they are in a position to make demands? "Everyone needs to change because it is too much work for us to keep supporting those libs".

And their "solutions" are laughable, especially considering that Ubuntu is supposedly focused on user friendliness. Linux for human beings, the newbie distro, it just works... except a lot of things don't work at all anymore. And what their suggest? GPU pass through.

As for games, developers generally targeted Ubuntu specifically. What happens when Ubuntu of all things stops working? How the heck can we ask for developers to support Linux when the "biggest" and "default" distro suddenly breaks all games? Valve were at the point where they ambitiously wanted every game on Steam to work on Linux; now games with official Linux support, as well as default Wine, will stop working on Ubuntu. I'm not sure they could cause more damage if they tried. The only saving grace is that, as FOSS, no single company can control Linux entirely.

I'm still hoping that they revert this change on 20.04. Maybe this was just a test run, or a gimmick to make people panic and start publishing 64 bit. But well, my next distro certainly won't be Ubuntu-based.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestReally tempted to buy it. But does it run under AMD? I mean possible but when official there is only support for Nvidia...

Depends on how recent your Mesa version is. I have integrated Intel graphics, and it didn't work initially with Ubuntu 16.04's default Mesa version, but it works really well now (I am using padoka's ppa).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SalvatosYeah, I've taken part in a couple projects by Cool Mini Or Not and the experience is vastly different. It's really just a glorified pre-order full of exclusives and shiny things meant to line their pockets early so they don't have to take out a loan to pay for the print run. I'd rather just get the basic product everyone else gets at release, off the shelf of a local store, and not have to pay for insane shipping.

Funding small teams has been a lot more rewarding since you get the sense that you're actually helping them make something that couldn't have been made otherwise for actual lack of money. Many of them are also more interested in feedback and backer participation along the way, and thankful for it, especially those who didn't have an audience at all prior to coming to the platform.

I was thinking exactly of CMON when writing that. They have a gamified pre-order system with tons of publicity, and call it crowdfunding.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: gradyvuckovicPersonally I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that crowdfunding is almost always a terrible idea and almost always used incorrectly.

The normal way to do business, would be to start small, make a few small games, then gradually work up to larger projects off the back of the smaller ones.

If a game developer is crowdfunding, it means that first of all, they're likely taking on something of a much larger scope than they're probably ready for, that's warning flag number 1.

The second thing it means, is that they likely weren't able to find financial backing from any publisher or bank or anyone, which means no one wanted to invest the idea, that's warning flag number 2.

Crowdfunding comes with no strings attached or certainty at all that the game will even be made, so you can potentially throw your money at something that goes no where, which is very wrong, YOU should not be asked to take on that kind of risk, that risk should be taken on by the game developer. Because if the game is a success, it's the developer who will receive all the spoils of victory, and have a product to sell over and over again. You just get the opportunity to basically pre order a game. When it's the developer who gets the 'reward' then it's the developer should take on the 'risk' for that reward. And they likely would, if they themselves had any confidence in their project, which means they likely don't if they're using crowdfunding, that's warning flag number 3.

If none of those above statements apply to a crowdfunding project, because it's being made by a very capable team of people who have made very large games before and have an established game development studio and plenty of funds, and who wouldn't struggle to find a publisher for their project, and it's being made by people who are confident they can produce the final product, and that it will sell well.. then it means the company views crowdfunding as essentially just an interest free loan from people who are too generous with their money. They don't need the crowdfunding, they just want the cash, that's warning flag number 4.

There's a time and place for crowdfunding, and in my view, it's for projects that benefit a community. Funding the creation of a product that a company will own and sell, is not one of those in my opinion. A better use of crowdfunding would be crowdfunding the creation of FOSS licensed games for example, because then at least the people taking on the risks (the backers) are the ones who would receive the reward (a foss licensed game).

I disagree a lot with this view. It is very "big company" centered as opposed to individuals and real indie groups, and then of course it looks bad; that is not what crowdfunding was supposed to do.

1) Not really. It might mean they have the technical, design and even management skills... but not the capital to invest. The same reason why they would go somewhere else for funding, except it doesn't take control away from the developers and into "investors" (rich people that have the money necessary to make things, but that aren't actual developers themselves).

2) This is the point I have more problems with. This assumes that crowdfunding is just a last resource and not an advantageous model in itself - and, for reasons both good and bad, crowdfunding can often be better.

More importantly, it also assumes that publishers, banks, studios, etc always make good calls and that every kind of project could easily get funding, which is not true. They are often biased in favor of more mainstream projects over niche or innovative ones, for example. And projects of a certain scale are just below their interest. And while videogames (in particular of certain genres) have lots of big players, that isn't true of every kind of project. Lastly, the criteria investors use have less to do with what is best for final costumers and more with their business strategy - for example, proprietary software.

It also often impacts the creative independence of authors and developers, which might be good (you are looking for an editor to avoid screwing up) or bad (it prevents you from realizing your vision, particularly if you want to make something bold or unique).

3) The kind of risk taken is very different. A big part of crowdfunding is that projects only succeed if there are enough interested "customers" backing it, and if there aren't no one loses any money - so there isn't the risk that it isn't going to sell. The risks involved are regarding developer ability and honesty, and there are certainly challenges in minimizing that risk.

But part of the point is that customers are accepting some degree of risk because otherwise that project would not be possible at all. Sometimes developers can't or won't take that much risk/debt, so either people "share the burden" or things don't happen. It is easy to talk about risk and investment from the point of view of big entrepreneurs... but sometimes, there are just normal people that aren't willing to risk their homes or the financial security of their families over a project, no matter how much they believe in it. The alternative, of course, is having all projects funded by big companies directly or indirectly, but see #2.

4) Well, on this I agree; projects that don't need the funding shouldn't use crowdfunding for self-promotion and increased profit margins.

I think the big takeaway should be that crowdfunding was just never meant for large mainstream projects.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: riusma

Quoting: GuestThey are the worst!

At least they had offered refund for bakers when Linux was cancelled. ;)

I didn't know pastries were affected, but at least bakeries had a choice. xD

But seriously, I think offering a refund is not even close to addressing the issue. It is maybe better than getting a game you will never run.

A company gets people to give them money under false pretenses; the money and number of backers are usually displayed in the campaign or in advertisements, misleading other backers; they hold on to the money usually for a long time; and usually the burden of asking for a refund is on the backer. So they take a "fraudulent" zero interest loan, benefit from user engagement for marketing, and they keep the money unless the backer puts in the effort to get it back. They use in bad faith the lax nature of crowdfunding to get away with stuff like this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think this is the kind of crowdfunding promise that is very serious to break, as it completely stops some people from being able to play the game. It is not an extra. And no, a refund doesn't fix anything. And if the Linux version was different in some way (including delayed), it absolutely needed to have been disclosed beforehand.

And I also think that crowdfunded games have even less excuse to cut Linux. They can't argue that the cost isn't worth it; they should have already budgeted for it when setting the goal, which was met. Now it is their problem. It is better to leave Linux out of the promises than to scam Linux users.

I think a positive example of crowdfunding Linux-wise is AI War 2. The game isn't finished yet (and, of course, it is late). But we have had Linux versions of the beta (and alpha, I think) for years already. The developer is also very open about the development (almost too much, but I like it).

I still think crowdfunding is an interesting model. It worked great for the "local" RPG scene; it helps a lot the vibrant indie community and enables the translation of mid-size RPGs that didn't really work traditionally. But I have grown skeptical of it for the really big projects, with $100k+ goals, huge teams, bombastic campaigns with lots of stretch goals or exclusives, ridiculously polished version right at start and so on. If you can't get to know the people involved, it probably shouldn't be using crowdfunding. I have also created a better opinion about Patreon-style crowdfunding, though mostly through friends that use it to get funded as I'm not currently in a position to contribute much. :/

View this comment - View article - View full comments

If they made a good single-player mode for it, I would even consider trying my hand on it. Ideally it would even be pausable, but that is probably too much to ask...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mylkacan valve please remove all epic games from steam
and if they advertise their games on steam, they have to release it on steam on day 1, or else dont give them a steam page!

i mean shemmue 3 is epic exclusive forever and they still have a steam page
https://store.steampowered.com/app/878670/Shenmue_III/

I really hope they don't. It could really screw platforms like itch.io or FOSS games, for example, or indie developers in general. I'd rather they didn't use their size to lock people into deals that make it harder to compete, even if other stores do exactly that.

But I would find it very satisfying if they rubbed it in by announcing something like "We have noticed that some developers are creating steam pages for their products even though they don't plan to release on Steam, or to only do so after a long time. We are flattered that people believe our service is useful to them even in those circumstances, and proud that we offer services unmatched by our competitors and that go much beyond a simple online store. We have chosen to allow those pages for now, and we hope that developers will see the advantages presented by Steam and in the future will choose to publish their games in our store for full access to the many benefits Valve offers to developers and to customers."

I'm not saying it would be a good strategy - the silent treatment is probably the best option. But it would be a beautiful thing to see.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Not targeted at the developer in particular, but at anyone that defends Epic.

1) If the Epic store is working on improvements, only put your game there - especially exclusively there - after said improvements are complete. Instead of asking people to put up with it and have faith.

2) Taking money from a third party specifically to restrict customers from doing something they would prefer is obviously not going to sit well with the customers. And people should not expect customers to put the developers interests above their own ("but Epic pays more, and the developer has money to make more content, and whatever" - not their problem). Making a game an exclusive is a conscious choice to offer an inferior product and screw many of their (possible) customers for money. Doing it after people have already paid in some way is deeply unethical, and fulfilling the steam sales is the bare minimum (and still far from satisfying).

View this comment - View article - View full comments