I am going to try streaming it here soon: http://www.twitch.tv/linuxwithliam [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

--eon_force_display=0

Use that in Steam's launch options, fixes both issues for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The more Windows benchmarks I'm seeing, the more reasonable my figures are looking. Looks like it's a very CPU heavy game, and seeing people on my CPU with a GPU that's close having worse/around the same figures is encouraging.

Video for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otlwZbOTkDg [External Link]

That guy has the same CPU+GPU as me, and he is seeing about the same+bit lower performance.

So, do we consider that a win?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, the default graphical setting was a bit silly.

I used the dropdown to Very High and it's much nicer performance, seems smooth so far. It does dip, but that's to be expected. In a firefight it dropped down to around 45FPS, but it was still smooth and playable.

Mouse doesn't work for interacting with the UI, very annoying, but should be easy for them to fix.

So far, I'm quite impressed.

Edit: You can turn bloom & blur down to zero, that makes me rather happy. Both are icky. Performance went up a bit doing that too I'm sure, and oh I died :(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Samsai also ordered a copy, so he can test on an AMD GPU hopefully.

Edit: Bah, he replied as I was writing my comment.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You know what, fuck it. I would like to support VP's effort here, purchased.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Either way, I am also thankful they did Linux to begin with. Yeah they asked for extra money on KS, but they delivered a game that works well. I am yet to try it since the new patch, hope it improves my own personal experience.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: liamdaweTalking about numbers, mine were taken directly from SteamSpy which can track who owns what.

They can't, they have to extrapolate from public profiles. (So everybody who doubts that Steam survey is correct should doubt this one as well.) But that's not the primary number I'm having heavy doubts with. Everybody doing business will tell you that a lot of money is subtracted from your sales before you get it into your hands. Some examples have been given in an article linked by someone above. We cannot just multiply an extrapolated nuber of sales with an unlikely share of it being left to the developer, subtract a made up number of QA cases which we don't know how expensive they are and tell the ones who plainly know better than us how much bucks they made profit from this.

Hence why I said it's not perfect, we are simply guesstimating and there's nothing wrong with what we are doing. I like trying to see what a developer deems as acceptable or not, it helps us after all to see.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikePlease stop ranting, and stop adding numbers you don't have.

These developers made a very good game and a very good Linux port of it.
They have got all numbers and when they say it wasn't worth it, there's no point not to believe that.
(Why would somebody say such if he has made profit of it? No reason to believe so.)

Some of the parameters might change, like a better Linux support of their engine and more Linux knowledge in their team (due to the first port). So there's still hope for their games to be ported in the future.
I really hope so.
Looking forward for The Bard's Tale.

Talking about numbers, mine were taken directly from SteamSpy which can track who owns what. It's not perfect, but it's a good measure to go by. There's nothing wrong in doing things like this, as it allows us to see what level of income some developers deem acceptable for a port.

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuySo much hate here. They were just answering a question honestly.

It's true people shouldn't spread hate, but people need to learn to separate hate from curiosity and criticism.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Unity has come a long way that's for sure, games don't run as badly now as they used to performance and general issue-wise.

I really am failing to see how they didn't think it was worth it, sure the percentage is low, but why do developers repeatedly hark on about the percentage of the platform. They clearly made quite a bit of money from the Linux version of it, and there's simply no way support costs for the Linux version were higher than what they made. If it is, to me that's another case of developers taking too much money from what the game has made, and not using it correctly.

Using data from SteamSpy [External Link], it currently has 509,875 owners.

Rounding down owners and price here to allow for fluctuations:
1% of 500,000 = 5,000
5,000 x £30 = £150,000

That doesn't count any GOG sales of course, of which there will be a few, but probably not as many as Steam. 5,000 people buying the Linux version doesn't sound like much, but looking at the income generated from it, it's quite reasonable isn't it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments