Time To Guess What Feral Interactive Are Working On, New Teaser

Quoting: lucifertdarkWhat's wrong with the X-Com port? I know I've only spent a few minutes playing it but I haven't had any game stopping bugs or performance issues, so what's wrong with it?

Astro is disappointed by the lack of 32bit support for X-Com. This is a valid and rational disappointment (although some of the ways in which that disappointment has been expressed are a bit uncool).

If I remember correctly, the X-Com store page didn't state that it was 64bit only, which resulted in some 32bit users purchasing a game that they couldn't play (which sucks, but these things happen).

Quoting: Cheeseness

Quoting: lucifertdarkWhat's wrong with the X-Com port? I know I've only spent a few minutes playing it but I haven't had any game stopping bugs or performance issues, so what's wrong with it?

Astro is disappointed by the lack of 32bit support for X-Com. This is a valid and rational disappointment (although some of the ways in which that disappointment has been expressed are a bit uncool).

If I remember correctly, the X-Com store page didn't state that it was 64bit only, which resulted in some 32bit users purchasing a game that they couldn't play (which sucks, but these things happen).

Yes he is disappointed but it does not mean that he need to be so childish and show his disappointment all the time. I am just amazed how log one person can keep grudge.

Quoting: AstroSadly, it would be one more half-ported game by Feral.

You keep bringing this up whenever Feral is mentioned. You're a troll who beyond help.

Quoting: Cheeseness

Quoting: lucifertdarkWhat's wrong with the X-Com port? I know I've only spent a few minutes playing it but I haven't had any game stopping bugs or performance issues, so what's wrong with it?

Astro is disappointed by the lack of 32bit support for X-Com. This is a valid and rational disappointment (although some of the ways in which that disappointment has been expressed are a bit uncool).

I don't want to drag out the argument at the expense of discussing what we're here to discuss, but is it really a valid disappointment? It's a bit like complaining that they no longer make 8bit games. 64 bit processors and operating systems have been in households for over a decade now, linux having supported it far longer than Windows et al. What possible valid reason is there for still using 32bit? And if using 32bit really is necessary for some reason (aside from ancient hardware), then you can always dual-boot it with a 64bit distro.

The only people I've ever encountered who still run 32bit distros on 64bit architectures are crackpots who talk about 64bit not being ready for production use. They tend to actually know nothing about it because they aren't programmers.

Quoting: GBeeI don't want to drag out the argument at the expense of discussing what we're here to discuss, but is it really a valid disappointment?

Sure it is. How available or how common 64 bit hardware is doesn't negate the validity of disappointment at not being able to run something.

I don't think it's a bad thing that Feral didn't support 32 bit distros with their last Linux title, but I do think it's bad to say that someone isn't entitled to feel unhappy (I am, of course, not referring to the unpleasant nature in which that unhappiness has been expressed in the past - that's uncool).

Quoting: GBeeThe only people I've ever encountered who still run 32bit distros on 64bit architectures are crackpots who talk about 64bit not being ready for production use. They tend to actually know nothing about it because they aren't programmers.

I was running a 32 bit OS until last year, and I'm a programmer. I might be a crackpot though, who knows ^_^

The disappointment that something doesn't work on your platform is valid, and something long term linux users will be very familiar with. The disappointment that it doesn't work because you refuse to switch from a 32bit install to a 64bit install (at no cost) isn't IMHO.

I draw a distinction between those not wanting to upgrade because they are happy with what they've got, and those who refuse to upgrade then complain they are missing out on some application or feature.

All the programmers I worked with were among the very first to switch years ago when only the only desktop processors supporting 64 bit were made by AMD, how else do you ensure your code builds and works correctly in 64 bit environments? :) These days there are far more likely to be 32 bit only bugs than 64 bit bugs (narrowing conversions etc).

Well to chip in on this whole thing, the next GOL survey results are coming out in just over a week and so far the statistics make me think that if I was a developer, I wouldn't bother with 32-bit Linux either... I can't fault their decision at all.

Like obviously I love Linux and want to see it supported, but given the TINY percentage of 32-bit users, it just isn't worth supporting at all. I think we should be very happy we have what we have, and maybe removing 32-bit support for gaming from the equation, it would be more tempting for developers to port to and develop on Linux because it just means one less hurdle.

EDIT:

QuoteIf I remember correctly, the X-Com store page didn't state that it was 64bit only, which resulted in some 32bit users purchasing a game that they couldn't play (which sucks, but these things happen).

Also, if that's the case then complaints are justified. Not complaints about not supporting 32-bit (I still think beggars can't be choosers), just complaints that games were bought under the impression which it did.

Quoting: GBeeThe only people I've ever encountered who still run 32bit distros on 64bit architectures are crackpots who talk about 64bit not being ready for production use. They tend to actually know nothing about it because they aren't programmers.

I used 32bit until last year when I switched to SteamOS as my main system. Previously I used Mandriva and then Mageia all of them 32bit since around 2005.
I think I kept using 32 bit out of inertia and because of some benchmarks that shown (at that time) some slight advantages in gaming.

So recently I switched to 64bit and I'm glad I did it, I would never turn back now.
But calling people crackpots for their choices is not helping having a sane discussion at all.

I'm convinced that the game is a Batman game after reading through this whole thread and diving into the links people have provided.

As far as 64 bit goes, the first Linux distro I ever used was Suse 8 64 bit back in 2005 on a custom built PC. Everything worked great except there were no drivers packaged for the GPU... no shock there. :)

Quoting: dubigrasuBut calling people crackpots for their choices is not helping having a sane discussion at all.

As I said before I make a distinction between those who stuck with 32bit out of inertia and those who did so because they think that 64bit is somehow inferior. I wasn't calling people crackpots for their choice, but for the reasoning behind their refusal. As a developer I've heard many people argue why 32bit is 'better' and almost without exception those arguments have ranged from bizarre misconceptions ( "I don't have enough RAM to run 64bit" ) through to loony conspiracy theories ( "64bit is just a way to sell more processors, it offers no advantages over 32bit" ).