Quoting: holisticboyAlthough the Unity engine makes it easier to make games for all platforms, what unity does is only a single part of development. For every other aspect of development, additional platforms often means 100% replication of every other aspect of development, such as the creation, maintenance and execution of manual and automated test suites (every time you add a platform, you double your testing load), any support/creation/maintenance of architecture, build systems and/or developer machines and software configurations.

If that would be the case, why wouldn't they tell us that as the reason why they don't work on the Linux version yet? Wouldn't adding platforms like Nintendo Switch be even more additional workload in comparison to working on a Linux version after a Windows version?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It works well with Wine. Fun game!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wouldn't usually put much faith in something as little as this, but they did put out a working alpha build previously, so they obviously have a little experience.

The Kickstarter from 2014 had a small demo. Not only for Windows, but also for Linux. I remember that the README of the Linux demo had a text that said that they did not test this version, but that they believed it should work. And it did work. It was only a small battle, but I don't remember seeing anything wrong with it.

Fast forward, the Linux beta of the released product comes out. It also pretty much worked. Some missing textures at rare places, very few crashes. Many people played for hours without any issue.

I'm not sure if there was a considerable amount of work put into the Linux beta, or if it just worked without touching anything - as it was with the demo.

I have to say that my hopes were higher at the time I paid for this game on Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Boogiepop_Phantom

contribute for the sake of making something better for everyone - including themselves.

And who ought to decide what's better for everyone, or on personal level, better for me?

In many cases, you would change something because it is useful for yourself. You make this change available for everyone. Even if your pull request gets denied by your favorite project, there is no reason to not make a fork. If people think your change is useful, they will start to use it.

Hm. I thought this would be a longer post, but that really is it. If I'm missing something, I'm happy to discuss it. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNo, morals are a terrible base for any kind dealing between people. Everyone has their own morals and acts according to them, of course. But they have no place in law or its enforcement.
If your whole argument is "don't do something because I think it is wrong", you have already lost your cause.

As long as their is no tangible downside to people using code without adhering to licenses, people will just continue to do so. And to be honest, I don't really see a way to create something tangible.

I agree that the world right now doesn't give a shit about such things. But that doesn't have to be this way. Despite FOSS having this disadvantage, it still is way better in comparison to closed source. Technically and morally.

Ideally, people don't have to "deal" with each other in the future, but rather contribute for the sake of making something better for everyone - including themselves.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf there is no repercussion to doing illegal things, there is no reason not to do them.

Ah, now, I can hear you say:
Because it would be "wrong"!

And to that I say:
Did you ever meet a human being? Morals are a ground so thin it is impossible to base anything on them.

Of course it's possible to base things on morals. It's just not for everyone. Not everyone is the same, and there are people who don't have conscience - literally [External Link]. For those, there literally is no reason to not do something like this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI've been working on Stella (an Atari 2600 emulator) for almost 18 years at the point.

I used Stella a few times. I have to say it is a nice experience, as it is refreshingly different, has a nice GUI, is easy to set up and just works. Thanks for the work, man!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Geppeto35Already I'm bored to wait for the end of the rounds in CS ... in such a game, I would go crazy. Unreal-Tournament-style is perfect for me: you die? you re-appear in the max. 5 seconds in base, full stop! No time to waste my life waiting for pro-gamers to finish their round of hide and seek :-P
Moreover, no collective goals and team actions in PUBG? Can you propose temporal alliance to other player(s)? or only "all against all"? ... What the interest in that case to play against other humans on the web? Opponents could be bots with different skills. AI is bad to collectively build something with human and adjust with other biotic intelligence to reach a common goal. In pure competition "all against all", AI can do the job.
I need to try it to understand, but not a that price and not on windows :-DD

You don't have to wait for the round to end. If you or your team dies, you can immediately start a new round with different 100 people. There solo, duo and squad servers.

The game is badly optimized, some seriously bad UI design. There are many things wrong with this game. But still, the game play is sooooooooo good, it's pretty much a steal for this price.

I hope something better comes out soon. Until then, PUBG is fun.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

From the trailer, it's hard to tell what this game is about. It seems to be text based, but the trail doesn't give enough time to know whats going on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Notable difference between the well known Bitcoin and Enjin Coin: The company Enjin already created all of the 1,000,000,000 ENJ and already sold most of them to people who hope that the currency gains value over time. They think of those people as investors.

As I see it, they want to make money with promoting a cryptocurrency that is supposed to be used for buying and selling ingame items, aka microtransactions. From their "whitepaper": "Using ​Enjin ​Coin will ​promote ​a ​culture ​of ​passion, ​collaboration, ​and ​pride by ​giving ​players ​more ​control over ​their ​game ​content."

The difference to other "in-game currencies": If you buy something in typical games, the money is gone and you have the virtual item. You can not convert it back. ENJ coins are meant to be converted back to real money. In other words: Items and ENJ coins have a real world value. Or as they also put it in their "whitepaper": "Earn ​Enjin ​coins (money) ​playing ​games."

With that in mind, I wonder what the community here thinks of Enjin and their coins. Take a look at their website: https://enjincoin.io/ [External Link]

Myself, I think it is really good that there are no strings attached for Godot. The money is also a good thing for hiring additional devs for Godot. But I rather would like to have a different Platinum Sponsor boasting about being a partner of Godot. I really dislike microtransactions. I've not seen any game that was more innovative or had better gameplay because of microtransactions. The fact that this time the items and the coins have real world value is only making it worse for me. Way worse. And I have to say that I am rather wary of Enjin after reading about them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments