Quoting: usrtrvBiggest downside is the guilt of buying a minor upgrade. I need sell/give away my old Steamdeck so it's not gathering dust.

It's Valve evil plan how to convert people to linux. They release minor update which linux users need to buy and then they give old one to win/mac family members. Second hand steamdecks are devilish plan of lord Gaben to attack windows market share :grin::grin::grin::grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I planed to buy Steamdeck to family member for christmas... so plan is canceled. He gets my old one :-D :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Benedolt

Quoting: Liam DaweA lot of console ports a done by a third-party, and they end up having their own code-base that's separate.

In the case of Factorio a single (in-house) developer worked on the controls for the switch port. And after that was released he spent all his time fixing the switch version before moving on to the Steam Deck. That's what they said in an update [External Link] last December.
So they just seem to have a small team. :)

Yes small team. It look like they have whole team on web listed [External Link]. They have 13 programmers (Web included) and one of them is part-timer. Part-timer is one who work on linux support :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, we have body, joysticks and now display. One think for upgreads for deck which we need right now is main board with new CPU. Can some small chinase company buy cpu used in ASUS ROG Ally? :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: ArtenWhat childish atitude?

Insulting a well-established gaming studio because Epic's failed promises led to said studio not releasing on our platform. Childish.

Also, ignoring the extraordinary lengths that the studio went to trying to work around those failed promises.

Childish is strawmaning somebody else. And here we have your strawman argument. I did not attack studio because they didn't port it. I'm ok with proton solution. I already explained my problem is with attitude of ROCKFISH. They probably didn't even build it under linux whole time and tried it on last couple of weeks. That is when they discovered issue with engine. I did not expect same work to linux as with windows. I even don't expect alpha or beta release on linux. But there is bare minimum continuous work which I expect and they did not do it.How we know it? Because couple of weeks ago we had message from them that they don't know about problem porting it on linux.

Everspace 2 has been developed for years, kickstarter has been in 2019. Unreal engine 5 has been revealed in 2020, early access in 2021 and full release in 2022. Certainly, if they knew about engine issues from start, when engine has been still actual product, they had much better chance to get patches from Epic. You cant argue epic lied them, when they had engine at least 3 years in hands and they did 0 work to check compatibility not only of engine, but also of their own work.

From features perspective unreal 4 is death project now, but has not been death in 2020. I did not expect them to have priority on linux. I expected them one in couple of month or two to atleast make linux build and test if there is some show stopper issue. And here we are, with show stopper issue, on dead engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: ArtenThats my internal definition

Internally define away. Knock yourself out. Just realise that it's meaningless and irrelevant to everyone in the real world.

Offering refunds isn't a sign of anything? Yes, it is. It's a sign that RFG are doing the best they can to be the good guys here. Epic screwed them, and they've gone above and beyond their responsibilities to you, a kickstarter backer with absolutely no rights. They had NO obligation to offer refunds. None. But they're doing it anyway.

Quoting: ArtenThey know it only on release is sign of incompetency.

RFG are far from incompetent. Pretty sure you enjoyed E1, right? And now I'm enjoying E2, an absolutely incredible experience. Criticising a dev for decisions is one thing. Blatantly insulting their capability in the face of evidence is quite another. You can get right in the sea with that childish attitude.

Quoting: ArtenBut still they lost credibility

Only with those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the extraordinary lengths these devs went to in order to try to deliver their product.

You're hating on the wrong people here, and it's frankly out of order.

No refund is not sign of anything. It's standard. When we had last game with canceled linux port without refund? I can't remember any case.

What childish atitude? They get my trust with E1, i buyed E2 on kickstarter, and right now, they lost my trust, because they are incopetent. Incopetenci is not universal, they are competent with making Windows game, but nobody can trust them with E3 on linux.
Poor support for the engine does not appear a few days before release. The fact that they only found out now is the incompetence. If they had come up with the same reasoning six months ago, I wouldn't have had a problem. I don't mind a proton, I play E2 through it. It bothers me that a few weeks ago they has been "reasonably confident", today linux is impossible.
Now I know that E2 is at least playable through a proton, but I can't trust them with E3. So what I'm writing about is that the next time they don't see a dollar from me until I see the rating on protondb.

I don't hate them. I rigthfully cryticise them. Unless Epic broke into their office and converted E2 to a engine with broken vulkan a few days before the release, I just can't trust them in the competence of porting to linux, and this is entirely on their head, not Epic.

I was practically in the same situation at KC:D. With just one minor difference. Warhorse didn't tell me a few weeks before release that they didn't know of any problem. On the contrary, half a year or a year before the release, I heard criticism from one of the studio heads at Pragoffest about not keeping promises from Crytek. That small difference changes my view of the developers quite strongly, and that's why warhorse didn't get the same criticism from me, because they knew they had a problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: ArtenTotaly irelevant. From my point of view it's just buying without legal protection from state, so everythink is based solaly on my trust in developer. Legaly kickstarter can't call it buying, but by my internal definition it's still buying.

Not irrelevant at all. Venture funding is fundamentally different from purchasing. You aren't paying for the product, you're paying to help get the product made, whether it succeeds or not. Whether it makes it to completion or not.

Crowdfunding campaigns are laid out just like an funding pitch, just with product-based rewards instead of equity in the company. We don't get to walk into the situation and redefine what venture funding is, regardless if it's done by an Venture Capitalist firm or through crowdfunding. It's the same thing, the main difference is that crowdfunding allows companies, especially small ones, to get funding for projects a VC may not want to invest in b/c it's not the hot thing right now or the returns are relatively small. Instead, crowdfunding lets us put money into a project and hope we get our return (usually a product and/or some exclusives) while taking less risk overall.

The fact that they offered refunds is a sign that they didn't want to drop the Linux version, but felt they had no other choice since Epic was refusing to fix something that they had promised to fix. And sometimes, that's just the reality of life in software dev.

I give them money they give my product -> buying.
I give them money they give my company shares/bonds -> investing.
Thats my internal definition

Offering refund is not sign of anythink. They did not delivered what they promised, so they give back money. In principle they get from some backers interest free loan.

Sign that they didn't want to drop the Linux version is official support of proton. They know it only on release is sign of incompetency.
But still they lost credibility regardless if you consider it buying or investing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: ArtenAtleast for me, it's not not buy game, but not support them on kickstarter. Is good idea buying game years before release from developer who proved he is not trustworthy?

Don't EVER PAY FOR ANYTHING ON KICKSTARTER AND ASSUME YOU'RE BUYING ANYTHING. Kickstarter is very, very clear in their notice that you are "Not preordering a product, but funding the possibility of that project being completed". It's on a big banner at the end of every project's campaign page. You are for all intensive purposes a "light" investor in the product and your return is a completed product rather than a stake in the company..... if it makes it to fruition. You are taking a risk on the project basically, not buying something.

Totaly irelevant. From my point of view it's just buying without legal protection from state, so everythink is based solaly on my trust in developer. Legaly kickstarter can't call it buying, but by my internal definition it's still buying.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: EagleDeltaI disagree. As I work in Software Development you have two competing problems as a company:

1. Make promises to get buy-in ahead of time or the project never gets off the ground.
2. You simply don't know what you don't know until you get to that point. The reality being that UE5 was not available when Everspace 2 started development and they were able to port Everspace 1 to Linux before. Imagine the surprise when you finally get to that work, only to find that the promise you had to make to get funding now no longer is viable from a technical standpoint without starting the entire project over on a new engine.... which is infeasible this late.

This issue doesn't happen as much in Tech due to the fear of customer churn on very expensive services. By comparison, once Game Devs (and Engine Devs) get their money, it's on to the next project since that up-front revenue does nothing but fade off over time. And, sadly, this part of the issue falls squarely on gamers' shoulders. As long as gamers continue to pay for things despite what GameDevs and Engine Devs do, there won't be any incentive to stop.

Sorry but you don't understand, the point isn't only a technical one.
You seem to find excuses where there are none...
When you promise a Linux version (or macOS), you do it from the start to avoid the maximum of issues, that was repeatedly said on this website from many people.
You don't start to "port" your game on Linux 1-2 months before the full release.
They never spoke about their difficulties about the Linux version, and yet they announce on the release day that there won't be Linux native, it's just dishonest.
They lied to us dude, it's simple.

Bonus (as I posted in the forum "Crowdfunding page suggestions"): https://www.youtube.com/live/CxYPVee36sY?feature=share&t=3250 [External Link]
Dare to tell me this guy is honest...

But yeah, this time I learned the lesson: never a trust a dev even if they released their previous game on Linux. I'm tired of it and, UE4 issues or not, I don't think I'm the only one.

Most likely is that doing the port once the game was complete worked for the first game, so they though in error that it would be the same with the new game, especially since they switched to Vulkan which works great on Linux. Of course they should have checked how well UE4 handles Vulkan on Linux before but then there are always lots of things that one could do.

In the end I don't really understand the outrage here. Are you guys on the "I will only buy native games" side arguing that they should have released the native version with horrible performance and have every Linux gamer switch to the proton version anyway due to the performance difference?

exit: of course I understand the outrage, I mean it was a kickstart goal that was met so they didn't deliver what was promised, should have worded that part differently.

Atleast for me, it's not not buy game, but not support them on kickstarter. Is good idea buying game years before release from developer who proved he is not trustworthy?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: ArtenI'm not happy about this. I trusted them because they have xp from Everspace 1. I don't think i support Everspace 3, if they try go with it on kickstarter...

The problem is related to bugs in UE4 and Vulkan that Epic refuse to fix because they've "Moved all focus to UE5". This is not something Rockfish could've planned for.... especially if Epic originally told them they planned to fix those bugs.

Everspace 2 is fundamentally different from Everspace 1, so while the experience of porting on Everspace 1 is valuable, it may not be 100% transferable either.

Which is all irelevant. They promissed Linux support. I know they are not main reason and we can blame epic, but this is all irelevant. I dont have promiss from epic, I have promiss from them.

It's not about specific code. It's about processes. Why they didn't know about this sooner? I did not expect linux to have same priority as windows, but what I expect is t least some testing basic testing in development. If there is fundamental problem with engine, how come they only knows about it now?

View this comment - View article - View full comments