Quoting: CheesenessEven just copying the files is way out of band for standard user experience, and specifically involves circumventing the platform's intended behaviour. From a developer perspective, I don't feel comfortable recommending manual workarounds like that to my customers.

Manually copying files around is the "user-friendly" outcome that you were looking for. I'm not trying to be argumentative here; it's entirely a dev's decision whether they choose to release on Steam or choose not to release on Steam, and that's fine.

The client's intended behaviour is an auto-updater, yes, for Counter-Strike, I believe, but there's a button in the client to easily show a game's files: that is also intended behaviour. It opens up your normal file browser at the appropriate location so you can do whatever file management stuff you'd do if you'd got the files from anywhere else.

That said, if one is cool with copying files elsewhere and adding the game back in as a non-Steam game, that's awfully close to the exact steps one would have to do to download the game from Itch and run it through the Steam client...

Why would you add the game back into Steam? The hypothetical is that not using the Steam client is superior to using the Steam client.

Breaking changes between versions is often not a conscious choice on the part of developers. I put some effort into maintain backwards/forwards compatibility with user data, but statistically speaking, there will eventually be something that I overlook or just plain mess up. That said, I should be free to consciously change file formats if that feels like the right thing to do for the future of the project without that risking a forced update upsetting the files of users who'd prefer to run an older version (even if you make older versions available in another branch, a user still needs to notice an unwanted update and manually switch branches without accidentally launching the game - it's a mess).

The file formats, manifests and scripts are entirely the developer's choice. There's no reason why a dev couldn't copy a game's files to a backup location prior to running an update in preparation for users using those files should they opt in to using an older branch. Each update comes with a News link where a dev can provide information on the changes and instruction on how to opt into an older branch, and the Steam client comes with access to the Steam forum for direct contact between devs and customers.

To reiterate: you can't easily do pay-what-you-want with Steam, and you can't distribute files without the customer using the Steam client. Those are absolutely valid reasons for a dev choosing not to release on Steam, and it's the dev's choice where they release regardless. If a dev wants people to be able to run older branches, and customers want to run older branches, that is absolutely something that can be done with the Steam client; the issues arise when a customer wants to run older branches and the dev doesn't want them to, which isn't the case here. At any point (assuming the game doesn't use Steam features, and so requires the Steam client to run) a customer can also independently take whichever version they're happy with and run it from wherever they prefer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CheesenessThat manual intervention [External Link] is so far beyond what a typical user is going to be up for, and it needs to be re-done every time the game updates (which a user might not notice and may end up accidentally launching a new game, risking their saves, etc. if there are any format changes or other backwards compatibility breakages).

Not really. If you're running a game without the Steam client (which depends on whether the game dev uses Steam features or not, but is trivial if they aren't) just copy the game files wherever you want and run them from there.

The instructions you linked to were for specifically rolling back an update that a game dev has pushed, where the game dev hasn't made the option otherwise available to use an older version. Breaking changes between versions are also the dev's choice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzyI'd be happy to pay $10 if it went up for sale on Steam. I'm not sure I buy into the whole "doing so now would also mean abandoning commitments" argument against that, unless keeping the game up-to-date on two (or more) platforms is unviable, and putting the game on Steam would mean having to remove the game from Itch. It reads more like Cheese doesn't want to put the game on Steam due to stubbornness, which is perfectly fine -- it's stubbornness on my part stopping me buying the game on Itch after all. :grin:

The commitment he's talking about is a self-imposed philosophical one: being able to buy the game without having to create an account, as well as the pay-what-you-want model.

The full set of commitments/constraints (pay-what-you-want pricing, being able to buy/play without requiring a storefront account, being able to buy/play without requiring a storefront client, being able to play without forced updates) that I've embraced significantly limit the storefronts I can sell the game on.

You don't (necessarily) need to be running the Steam client to run a game you purchased through Steam, but you do need a Steam account and to have run the Steam client at some point to download it. It is possible to continue running non-updated versions of software through Steam, but it requires manual intervention since Steam was created as a means to get updates out to everyone.

Later in the piece he describes Steam as "less user-friendly" because he views those constraints as important.

Interesting read, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I never had a C64, so I don't get any nostalgia from it, but the idea is neat.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: shorbergThere is also a similar issue within the Anglo-sphere, for instance with the common British word for a cigarette is a homonym [External Link] of a derogatory term for homosexuals in the USA.

There's also a word for a bundle of sticks used for kindling, or for a large meatball.

And the perennial Scunthorpe.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I find myself wondering whether the end game leaves you surprisingly competent with a bow and arrow, and returning home to fight crime using your archery skills.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's worth highlighting, because I'm not the only person that it's important to, that all of those displays are 16:10.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI take your point about using Windows being better for developers, who mostly develop on/for Windows. But on the other hand, Stadia's probably more efficient. There's reasons Linux dominates the server space. Cheaper infrastructure means savings for someone, so it might have some compensations for either developers or customers.

It's not that using Windows is better, it's just that they're doing that anyway. They aren't paying for the machines to run it on - that comes out of whatever the platform is taking as their cut - but they would have to pay someone to write and test a separate Linux version and they'd just really rather not. When Linux has gained sufficient market share so that all games will get a Linux build as a matter of course, then having to create a Linux build won't be seen as an additional cost, but we aren't there yet. So slapping an existing build on a Windows VM is seen as the cheaper, easier option, even if it's not ultimately easier or cheaper.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fleskStadia unquestionably has more positive repercussions for us, since it forces developers to adapt to Linux and Vulkan, whereas Luna makes that completely irrelevant. No matter what you think of streaming, Stadia is clearly a better deal for our ecosystem than Luna or GeForce Now.

It's just a shame that it's not as good for either developers or customers as the competing services.

For developers, they have to go to the effort of porting to Linux, which they don't have to do for the competitors.

For customers, you don't have access to games you've bought elsewhere, and you lose access to games that you've bought should you lose access to Stadia, which comes from the notoriously-fickle Google.

Which means that it won't have as much impact on the part we care about - game devs getting more experience with Linux gaming and Vulkan - as if it were a more competitive offering.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KeyrockSpeaking of Valve, I'm worried at how long it's been since the last Proton update. This is leaps and bounds the longest I can remember them going without an update. Even glorious eggroll has only had 1 update in months, and that's mostly a maintenance release. I wonder what the hold up is?

I suspect they they might be waiting for better DX12 support, or something else big, to be well on the way before the next update. Early on we were getting frequent updates because DXVK was changing fast, which isn't the case any more. Wine has been concentrating on long-term plumbing recently, too, so there's not been anything must-have from that side, either, at the moment. I don't think there's any cause for concern just yet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments