Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: LeopardLinux version was planned all from the beginning , they just add a little bit drama in it.

That would be my guess as well. I'm sure that they're still learning about how the taste of "Linux users" differs from that of their well known mac crowd, I'm sure they have a much better idea than whatever twitter can tell them.

Quoting: LeopardMacOS and Windows ver of F1 2017 is available while Linux version is only appeared on SteamDB.

That's not really relevant though. The Windows and Mac version appeared at the same time. Before public release, SteamDB can't reach all that information.

No, i'm saying that West Norwood radar activity was showing that there was an upcoming game to MacOS and Linux but earlier to MacOS.

So delay of the F1 2017 is exactly like radar showed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleSo they managed to port the game more or less overnight after asking if people wanted? Including securing permissions?

That or they decided to port that game LOOOOOOONG before asking in public.

What's more likely?

I don't think so.

First : Ego Engine is a familiar one for them from their previous ports.

Second and main reason : When they asked it , they were already close to finish port. The reason why they done a requestinator , simple.

They just want to ensure of sales coming from Linux gamers by simply making them giving promises with signing up to request pages.

West Norwood was F1 2017. It was once merged as MacOS and Linux icons. And then it seperated with MacOS version at a sooner radar zone while Linux version lagging behind.
Right now ; MacOS and Windows ver of F1 2017 is available while Linux version is only appeared on SteamDB.

Just like the radar pointed out.

And then ; West Norwood disappeared for both of them.

Linux version was planned all from the beginning , they just add a little bit drama in it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: LeopardMaybe , just maybe this could be a reverse PR technique.

Leak scenario and imply that is not gonna happen , feed the hunger of fans but also kill the expectations.

Under that scheme , if you release HL3 after killing the hype ; that can cause a massive hype even bigger than before.

Do they really need the hype? I'm convinced Valve could quietly release Half-Life 3 on Steam and it would become a best-seller within hours just from word of mouth alone.

No , but expectations are beyond that Valve can provide.

So basically killing hopes is a better way to turn people from " HL3 must be the killer game " to " I've lost all my faith to an upcoming HL3 but finally we're getting it "

Valve shouldn't be worried about sales at all ( which they won't ) but Valve is at the risk of when a comparatively bad HL3 comes of calling as a new Ubisoft or EA.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I thought key reseller sites are selling keys that are generated by publishers?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Maybe , just maybe this could be a reverse PR technique.

Leak scenario and imply that is not gonna happen , feed the hunger of fans but also kill the expectations.

Under that scheme , if you release HL3 after killing the hype ; that can cause a massive hype even bigger than before.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickI never said it was magic, I'm just saying neither is OpenGL. And drivers on AMD's side of thing are not overly great when it comes to optimizations for OpenGL. But we have seen good results from Vulkan, why develop 2 Engine API's and not just 1, focus is best put on Vulkan and not these OpenGL wrappers you're praising.

Because not every users gpu's are Vulkan capable. For example ; even some cards on Amd supports OpenGL 4.x but they're not compatible with Vulkan. Being only Vulkan games means they will be outcasted. Same will go for Windows side.
Vulkan's best selling point is ; it is also compatible with Windows 7 and Windows 8. So from this perspective ; Vulkan is advantage but not every card is Vulkan capable. So using two API is a must if you are aiming maximum sale.

Also Vulkan and Dx12 are harder to deal with when compared to OpenGL and Dx11.

You want a fast adoption for it but it is not possible , even for Dx12.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickI'm trying to point out here that VulkanAPI on Windows and Linux performs better then DX11 and OpenGL on either platform. Making it a great choice for system performance parity regardless of API comparisons. A PURE OpenGL game works great, but very few are, most have tacked on OpenGL (eg. warthunder) at best, majority of games are still directx based.

Vulkan would be a better wrapping solution for DirectX then OpenGL, which is what most companies are doing now with their Linux ports, why else would we get terrible performance under Linux in comparison to their directx windows counterparts? (which don't have OGL options)

Vulkan is not magic and if a game developed for DirectX , lots of engineering goes on Dx side ; a Vulkan wrapper cannot provide Windows performance.

Only game you can see the real Vulkan is Doom and upcoming Wolfenstein 2 ( both id Software) , others are not native afaik.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kon14

Quoting: LeopardActually , until they work out of the box people will stay on Windows or will emulate Windows on Linux via vfio at best.

Implying anyone who can't/won't configure Wine would setup passthroughs for Windows?

Perhaps people who got bored of Wine or the ones that really wish to play the latest and greatest d3dX titles on release, but I highly doubt this is average Joe's main choice and only alternative when it comes to transitioning to a linux desktop.

Both Wine and VM are beyond the level of average Joe. Average Joe should stick with dual booting.

But for a person capable of setting up Wine through different hacks in order to run something , setting up a VM shouldn't be that hard.

Also it is a one time pain , once you set it correctly you are ready to go.

Wine is pain every time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: LeopardBecause Wine can run something with X version and it can be broken on with upcoming Y version.

Various hacks used successfully on X version might not work on Y version.

That's why.

I wouldn't touch Windows with a ten foot pole. And it's also the reason many use Wine if they can. If anyone can set up VMs, they surely can set up Wine. So out of the box argument is pointless if you compare that.

When you set up VM succesfully one time , no further fixes needed. It is basically Windows , much more effective than dual booting or using Wine.

I understand your Windows hate but sometimes Windows is a must.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlWhy should you run Windows in VM if Wine can run something? Amount of effort in setting up VMs is barely smaller than setting up Wine, let alone if you need to set up PCI pass through and what not. Plus, it's a major plus not to deal with Windows at all.

Because Wine can run something with X version and it can be broken on with upcoming Y version.

Various hacks used successfully on X version might not work on Y version.

That's why.

View this comment - View article - View full comments