Quoting: SamsaiThe question is if SteamOS fails, will the devs accept these rather minimal profits when compared to other platforms.

Exactly.

But I dare to say: no, why should they?

I've read many times that - at least the smaller - developers
don't actually like Linux for different reasons*. They do it because
it is a new business opportunity (or a bet).
Don't think most of them are Linux-lovers like most of us are.
So don't think they do Linux releases for fun. No way!

(*) You know, Windows for work because of the share and Mac for the coolness...
Linux is too cluttered and inconsistent, blahblah. Some even outright said, they hate
the OS but *have* to do it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm afraid the argumentation that 1-3 % is better than zero is not quite to the point.
Well yes, it's more than zero. But from an economical POV we should be aware
that less developers will release Linux versions if the share is not improving significantly.

Even if you get the Linux binary "for free" because your engine supports that target,
it doesn't mean you won't need to invest into additional support due to platform specific issues.
That's additional money probably not even covered by the Linux sales.

So for now it seems lots of developers are fine with 1-3 % as they might consider it
a test bed for SteamMachines and build up the required know how.
But if - for some reasons - SteamMachines/SteamOS fail, I bet most of those developers
won't still invest into Linux for 1-3 %.

TL;DR

1-3 % seems to be fine for now, as developers might have high hopes in SteamOS/SteamMachines.
If they fail, 1-3 % simply aren't enough to keep the Linux train going (at least for AAA games).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=AspyrBlair]

Quoting: sub

Quoting: AspyrBlairSorry for being harsh, but stating this much earlier would have been fine for me.
Or did I miss it?

"intel/AMD not supported" could also mean: In principle it would be possible for us
to optimize the port for AMD/intel but compared to NVidia it is just too much work to pay out.
And to be honest, I thought it was exactly this...

I bought many games ported or released to Linux just for the sake
of supporting the developers/porters/platform. However, recently I'm waiting for
tests and user feedback in particular related to AMD systems.
I'm happy to be your customer again if the games work fine with AMD. :)

You havent missed it, and your totally valid for being upset. We've been really quiet about it...and so has AMD. The truth is, we are not driver devs and the issues are beyond our knowledge base (notice the game runs flawlessly on AMD with our OGL code on OSX). We need their help.

All fine, thanks for clarification! :)
That really helps!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AspyrBlair

Quoting: subI don't care what game it is.

As long as they're not fixing that bloody BL2 port to run on a Phenom II + HD 7950 (and similar configs),
I won't buy any other game from them. At least give feedback on the matter. What's stopping you from fixing it? Maybe there is a good reason. But just assuming it's AMD's fault would be cheap.

I'm playing the original windows version which runs fantastic on the same system!

These companies make it difficult to completely switch to Linux.

It's nobody's fault, but the fix will require AMD's help. The ball is in their court now.

The good news? This title will have full GPU support across NVIDIA/AMD/Intel

Thanks for the reply!

Sorry for being harsh, but stating this much earlier would have been fine for me.
Or did I miss it?

"intel/AMD not supported" could also mean: In principle it would be possible for us
to optimize the port for AMD/intel but compared to NVidia it is just too much work to pay out.
And to be honest, I thought it was exactly this...

I bought many games ported or released to Linux just for the sake
of supporting the developers/porters/platform. However, recently I'm waiting for
tests and user feedback in particular related to AMD systems.
I'm happy to be your customer again if the games work fine with AMD. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: coesetaThe system requirements state clearly:

Quoting: http://store.steampowered.com/app/49520/NOTICE: Intel Integrated video chipsets and ATI chipsets are currently unsupported for Borderlands 2 Linux.

So I don't see your point. I can imagine that Aspyr also don't have full source code access to the game and they are also not responsible to fix drivers.

Just imagine a company releases a game for windows stating: "BTW, intel and AMD not supported!"

Do you realize we're still some kind of second-class customers?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't care what game it is.

As long as they're not fixing that bloody BL2 port to run on a Phenom II + HD 7950 (and similar configs),
I won't buy any other game from them. At least give feedback on the matter. What's stopping you from fixing it? Maybe there is a good reason. But just assuming it's AMD's fault would be cheap.

I'm playing the original windows version which runs fantastic on the same system!

These companies make it difficult to completely switch to Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Or just a Red Herring...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: jotomo

Quoting: subOk, which difficulty to choose..?

Last time I played BG more than a decade ago and wasn't a master either.
According to the hints, I should take the 'easy' route.
What's your experience in a similar situation and what did you take?

Thanks!

I'd say just go with easy and if it's not challenging enough just change the difficulty. Fortunately the difficulty can be changed at any time (I really hate it when the difficulty can only be set at the beginning, when I know little about which level is right for me. A frustratingly hard level is as annoying as a non-challenging expererience). HTH.

Quoting: maodzedunFrom what I understand even easy is not quite easy. I chose Normal because I read the game is fairly challenging as it is and it's true. Normal is probably what would constitute as hard is most modern games but still not unfair like Dark Souls for example. The game is hard in the sense you have to figure out the right way to approach a battle and not how many times you replay an encounter till you manage to make it through. In the 10 hours I've played so far, the game managed to throw a new challenge at me every time I was starting to feel a bit too comfortable with the enemies, without me feeling overwhelmed.

PS A free tip - when you first meet Shadows - leave at least a mediocre fighter near your wizard or you're in for an unpleasant surprise :)

Thank you, guys!

I realized only later that you can change the difficulty on the fly.

Now with easy difficulty it feels easy enough but, indeed, not really easy.
Funny that you mention the Shadows. The first encounter with three of them -
I had only one other group member at that time - required me to earn enough money to
get a second group member. I was lost otherwise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chris200x9Just a heads up getting it to work on archlinux is a little tricky, steam tries to show you as a 32-bit OS when you need to be 64-bit for this game. I have gotten PoE to work by installing steam-native from the aur and running LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/lib" STEAM_RUNTIME=0 steam

Huh? Worked flawless without any manual intervention here.

After some hours played, I've to say this might be the best game (for me) since several years.
Honestly, it's extremely entertaining and worth every cent (if you at least liked the Baldurs Gate series).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ok, which difficulty to choose..?

Last time I played BG more than a decade ago and wasn't a master either.
According to the hints, I should take the 'easy' route.
What's your experience in a similar situation and what did you take?

Thanks!

View this comment - View article - View full comments