Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: CFWhitmanThe reason they can do this is because streaming a game basically distributes a copy to whomever is playing it (though the copy technically is on the server, an image of it is transmitted to the user). Since Unity have to license redistribution rights to all developers who use the engine, they can control the terms of that redistribution. Of course, it's quite possible that outside companies could continue to use an older version which doesn't have the restrictive terms, though I'm sure that Unity would try to prevent this.

When using streaming, shouldn't the client only need minimal software, comparable to what is in the Steam Link?

Yes, but an additional copy is created for each user and then the results of what it's doing are distributed to a client. That is generally considered to be enough to constitute redistribution. In the case of a Steam Link, the results of the same copy already running on the computer go to another device used by the same person who is running the computer, so that does not constitute redistribution.

Good explanation, I think.
Indeed, streaming a game is more than just, say, watching Netflix.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomI don't understand how different compilers can expose different bugs in the same(?) code. I mean, a bug is a bug isn't it? Or is it because the use of different libraries expose bugs caused by those particular libraries/APIs? If so, how will the code run smoother on a different set of libraries if the bug is related to that other library?

I don't get this?

Doesn't work that easy in programming, especially in C/C++, which is what pretty much all gaming is based on.
The same code simply might behave ever-so-slightly-different under different compilers.
Not major differences, mind you - that would be absurd. But small ones that can actually help uncovering otherwise hard to find bugs.

But he also mentions different libraries, like different threading libs per platform. That might be a more obvious example, where one library functions in a way that makes a possible deadlock in your code occur more often on that platform, so finding that bug earlier helps tremendously.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: bubexel

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWhile I don't care in the slightest about the VR gimmick, I agree with @Fictionbrain that the port is at the very least incomplete. If they plan to add that support to their Linux version (if possible with their engine & libs), given that they are still in early access, then I don't see much of a problem with it for the moment, though.

Gimmick? it's absurd say that, its the same as say a monitor is gimmick. It's just other way to display the game but 10 times more inmersive than a monitor.

If you are easily impressionable by the fact that "woooahhh, I can turn my heeaaaadd", sure.
I tried. I'm just not that easily impressed. Did nothing for me other than becoming bothersome after a while due to the weight, cables around my head, etc.

It was fun for a while, as gimmicks tend to be.
Went back to monitor after and never felt the need to do VR again.
So, yeah, a gimmick.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

While I don't care in the slightest about the VR gimmick, I agree with @Fictionbrain that the port is at the very least incomplete. If they plan to add that support to their Linux version (if possible with their engine & libs), given that they are still in early access, then I don't see much of a problem with it for the moment, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Damn capitalists striking at our games again!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This looks like it could rock my boat starship. Not usually going for early access titles, though, so this will have to wait a bit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dannielloI asked politely one of developers of very broken Linux port (Istanbul: Digital Edition) if they cannot support Linux - maybe they should remove it, because Windows version of the game is working great via Steam Proton. As an answer I received free code for Android version...

Ouch. I'd feel insulted...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Did not expect that, already wishlisted in hopes that it would run on Steam Play. Oh well, all the better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
I was planning to play WH:TW 2 over the holidays.

What ever am I going to do now?! :'(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: flesk

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf I ever make a game of my own, I'll only actually distribute a launcher to each platform. That launcher will then take care of actually downloading/patching the game. Sure, it would mean having to maintain my own server(s), but I've been using Amazon S3 & AWS (and other providers) for quite a while now... it's not that difficult.

Seems to be the only way to prevent having to maintain different builds across the various platforms, each with their own uploading, etc.
Also has the added benefit of being able to serve as a built-in mod-manager.

Or perhaps why not create a cross-distribution build platform that can build and handle the distribution to steam, gog, itch.io and so on. Could potentially by worth some real money for game devs?!

Such things already exist and is known as continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) in "regular" application development. The idea is that you use software (Jenkins, GitLab CI/CD, Travis, Circle CI, etc.) to pull code from a repository when you push changes, and then build and deploy to the store fronts you want your game on, eg. whenever you version tag a commit. For this to work, however, the stores must have an API or software that makes it possible to automate the process. Itch has Butler, GameJolt has a similar tool that's in beta, and Steam has SteamCMD, though I've not used the latter.

Which is a very large amount of work to set up and maintain. You have to do configurations per distribution platform per OS per version per <possible other configuration>.
And then you need to react to API changes, etc.
In large companies, you have people who just maintain the CIs as their main job, because while it does make things easier, it is still far from easy. I've been using a few of those at work and none of them are easy to use if you need to do some more configurations.
And then you still have to upload every single build to the distribution platforms without such an API. So you have to do it anyway if you are on more places than just Steam.
Then you have to make a news post on all the platforms as well, etc.

It might still be in total less work than writing a launcher yourself, but a launcher comes with a LOT of added benefits: News posting within the launcher, version management, mod management, crash reporting (can be done inside the application as well, but is MUCH easier to do in an external application), various settings that don't really fit in the game options, etc. And all of that fully independent from the distribution platform...

Of course, such a launcher would then have to be maintained itself per distribution platform per OS, but launchers do not change often once functional.

The biggest downside is likely the cost. After all, you already pay the distributor cut (which WOULD include the traffic cost for your game bytes), and in addition to that you have to pay whatever traffic is needed so people can download/update your game via your launcher. So you likely need a CDN as well. And so the costs rack up.

You'd have to do the math per case, but in the end, it might just be cheaper to not let your launcher do the downloading/patching. That doesn't mean you can't have a launcher anyway, of course (see Paradox games).

View this comment - View article - View full comments