It's fun - but sadly rather short-timed

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: LeonardKHm, what happens on highest possible settings on Full HD
Also, is this game multi-monitor-able on Linux?

I run two monitors, not sure what you mean exactly, but it works fine on my main monitor with stuff on my other monitor like IRC.

I meant whether it's able to span across 2 monitors. One could have a better overview then. Also it would need if one could show the "mini"-map in large-scale on the 2nd screen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hm, what happens on highest possible settings on Full HD
Also, is this game multi-monitor-able on Linux?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Looks really nice but it's probably really not of a game and thus one should not think that it is fun for a longer time if one isn't really trying to get on the grounds of it. Also 23 euroes are quite much for what you get - although on the other hand it's probably the right price when one considers the work the developer has done.

Maybe one could add some 'minigames', ie. objectives to do something? Plus workshop/mod support this could really become a nice game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'd just put it in opt (as the PKGBUILD for ArchLinux does too)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's only me being horribly tired or does the "Support requests by platform" chart not match?
Linux is blue and has 30% of the requests and Windows has 20% and is red - but in the chart, red has the bigger piece O.o

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzy

Quoting: LeonardK

Quoting: WorMzyLooks like the proprietary Intel driver users aren't the only people who need educating. :(

I just had the idea that there might be some confusion in case of Optimus and the such. Then one simultaneously could use the proprietary nVidia driver and the opensource intel one.

I had that thought a couple of months ago too. Looks like the graphics card question now explicitly asks optimus users to select nvidia, so that may help.

Oh ^^
Though I doubt it will help - the same way that regruping the "Do you have used a Windows partition" answers hasn't (though this is not confirmed to be a mistake).
Nobody reads polls closely :D

... maybe we should add a last question asking "Did you carefully read the poll? (No, Yes)"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzyLooks like the proprietary Intel driver users aren't the only people who need educating. :(

I just had the idea that there might be some confusion in case of Optimus and the such. Then one simultaneously could use the proprietary nVidia driver and the opensource intel one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MajorLunaC

Quoting: Guest

To top things off we also received a huge bill regarding the licensing of middleware that had been, unbeknownst to us, included with the Source Engine but not covered in the original License deal. Not only that, but we’d need to pay for a separate license for each platform released. It was a big hit financially, which put us at a loss in terms of the mac and Linux ports.

The final straw came in September last year, after what should what was promised to be a fairly straightforward PS3 port. Started in May, with the PS4 still far on the horizon and with a projected development time of only 2-3 months, it seemed like a safe goal to reach. We were excited to see how Dear Esther would be received by a new branch of gamers, but unfortunately we hit issues early on. First, having to license yet more middleware for Source, and then obtaining the additional PS3 source code for the Engine. This was all happening around the time of the departures at Valve, which unfortunately included our main contact for all things Engine related, and subsequently we spent weeks trying to find someone else who could point us in the right direction. This had a cascade effect on the whole project leading to months of delays, coupled with the contractor’s inexperience with the engine, communication problems, and then finally the PS4 release date announcement, we decided it was time to pull the plug, at significant cost to us.

So, when deciding which game engine to use, you can go with Source, which has tons of very expensive HIDDEN licensing fees that you pay even before you start developing, and has less and less support especially for multi-platform, being quite outdated anyway, and even more so being restricted to being used ONLY with Steam. OR, you can choose any number of the free and/or open-source engines that don't cost you a dime, are reasonably well-documented, and you can get support from other devs in the friendly and open community at any time, and you're never really restricted in any way. Even Unreal Engine 4 is extremely reasonable, paying only a % of profits AFTER a certain amount of profits.

Why is anyone even developing using the Source Engine anymore when you stuck with bastardly crap like this. It's an insane joke. Steam/Valve, much like Micro$oft Window$, is just a money exploiting scheme, squeezing as much money from consumers as possible in every way possible, including influencing development of games used through their systems, and putting as little work as possible into making and supporting the products. Thus, it should be known and referred to as Valve'$ $team.

Well, although I'm myself no fan of source - where do you find stuff to support your claims, namely:
- being quite outdated (we simply don't know)
- restriction to Steam

And I also would not agree on them being a money exploiting company - they make it clear to everyone that this is just a code drop. There were requests giving source to others but they don't want to provide support as this simply does not fit into their company. So they just code-drop it.
The way they do not provide any documention publically and the way the wiki is horribly outdated - I think - clearly shows, and should clearly show, that they just wont give any support. If people wanna use it they are completely free to do so - provided they have the money.

Also I'm actually pretty sure that Valve tells you that there are something like 'hidden costs', but dont say which just because they simply have lost the overview themselves.
They say that there is some middleware used which might give additional cost to the developers. This is basically typical Valve-attitude to things. They are bad licensors but just because they dont try to.
But the thing that distincts them from MS although, is that they do not advertise their products: They do not claim having the best engine.
"Gabe Newell has described the creation of content with the engine's current toolset as "very painful" and "sluggish"."

If one is using the Source Engine they are on their own, and I think that Valve makes this point rather clear. In this way I would not blame Valve but anyone deciding to use the source engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

One just should take a look at the wiki. And all the code. And any piece of documentation. Source is a great engine but it's awful to get started with it as there's no information that's available to any potential developer.

Just take the output of the 'vpc /h' (help of Valve Project Creator):
It has some strange options which are not really well documented and then:
'Further details can be found on Valve Internal Wiki on VPC.'

Horribly outdated in general too, I'd say source is not really a great starting point for game dev's.

You just don't know what you are up too.
The release notes with feature-overview haven't been updated for years. Which SDK has most recent code? Can I see what the current source engine features are without prior licensing?

SourceEngine for others is just not really much than a Code Drop. One should definitely know that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments