Quoting: EKRboiEDIT* Oh yea, the thumbnail for this article on the main page... good job ;)

Cheers! It was a bit cheeky, but the GoL editors were ok with it. :)

I totally agree with you on why this game being an example of Early Access working right. I can't imagine a publisher supporting during development (and then marketing) a game like this. But, it's got such a strong modding community, not to mention the subreddits and all the Youtube videos. I wonder if its popularity has played a part in the recent rebirth of the space sim (Elite Dangerous and that other one).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Umm to those suggesting retribution:

No.

Just no.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I just crunched the stats going back to January, it's interesting. I might make a news post about it a bit later once I have cleaned up the data a bit.

The summary is that there is a (small) aggregate trend upwards in Linux users (slope = 15,000, R2 = 0.452). There's a lot of noise.

The number of active users is in the band of 1M to 1.1M, there seems to be correlation between big game releases and usage. The release of Witcher 2, XCom and CS:GO and Borderlands 2 all correlate with a ~100,000 (temporary) increase in users. This probably suggests that a significant percentage of Linux users dual boot to Windows to play games. (It seems unlikely that these are largely people just trying it out, uninstalling and going back to Windows.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HadBabitsNot sure I agree there. I feel like Linux users who would care more about sending anonymous info for the survey than growing the number of visible Linux users probably aren't using Steam in the first place.

Agreed. Also, the fact that people care about the representation of Linux in these numbers is probably highly indicative of the general mood towards them.

Yes they might not want Valve to know about them, or their computer, but they perceive the survey is important to the future of Linux gaming. In the case of a Windows user, despite potentially placing less value in personal privacy (although, I think this is a pretty wild assumption to make to start with) the actual cost (loss of some privacy) is the same as a Linux user. The bigger difference between the two groups is what you might call the propensity for altruism. A Linux user is more likely to complete the survey because it benefits the greater good (or at least the greater good of the Linux user). A Windows user does not have worries about the representation of their chosen OS. It's unlikely that someone running Windows 8.0 will see a drop in representation of their current OS and feel any level of concern. That this thread exists says that Linux users do.

There is also, obviously, a degree of selfishness in that consistently low representation of Linux in Steam surveys could result in less game availability in the future. Linux users want games after all.

It's likely that this concern about representation translates to increased response rates for Linux users over Windows users. (I have no idea if Mac users care about Steam surveys or not.) A higher response rate would mean that Steam doesn't need to ask as many users on Linux, and hence you see them less often than you might on Windows (where response rates are in theory much lower). It's quite easy for Steam to target differing OS users based on how their client identifies itself to the service. The differing response rates would require demographic correction on some level, so even a large number of users refusing the survey on an OS wouldn't be a problem. Steam would just keep asking people on that OS until they reached a representative sample. (It's possible that the response rate on Windows is an order of magnitude less.) Without any investment in the survey (chance of a prize, etc), most people would not waste their time responding. For example, if a website you frequent pops up a satisfaction survey most people would simply ignore it. The cost/benefit (including the altruistic benefits) ratio is way too low for most people to bother.

It's also very likely that Steam is asking less Linux users as they have gotten repeat data month to month. In the first month that Steam launched on Linux it's quite likely they asked a much higher percentage of users as they would have zero data from the month previous. You would need a much higher number of respondents to have confidence in the stats you were collecting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HamishUnless they make a non-Steam release on GOG.com or whatever I am going to have to pass on the local landmark then.

You refuse to buy games on Steam?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HamishLiam is allowed to have some editorial voice; he is hardly being all that unfair to them.

I'm ok with that, but it is pretty much all he is saying about this release. It seems there were lots of contractual issues beyond the control of the guys doing it, but that isn't mentioned. It only launched on Steam for Mac a two months ago, as best I can tell. Isn't that a touch unfair?

And it'd be nice if he mentioned that it is actually a very good port. I just played four hours of it without a crash, a glitch or a bug.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Is the snark in the title necessary? :(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuyThat's another argument for another time. I was just quoting him on his realism argument.

The person did cover both points though.

On the realism front though, games do need an internal logic in the way the game rules work. Yes it is a game with magic, etc, but that doesn't change the rules of how armour works in the game. If a two-handed sword did less damage than a short-sword it wouldn't make sense. It isn't so much about realism, than it is about establishing an internal logic that doesn't break immersion.

So if you have to characters (one male, one female) which have the same die roll for strength, and other stats. You give them platemail armour and the female char gets only 1/2 her body covered, it's a dissonance, right? It's going against the internal logic of the game that more, heavier armour provides better defence. You add gauntlets, boots, pauldrons, etc and get more defence stats. Its broken logic, and its broken for a really superficial reason too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuyWhile I think boob plate looks ridiculous, I think bringing up the realism argument stupid in a fantasy game. You might as well complain about stuff like your characters moving around in normal speed wearing plate armor.

I think the larger problem is that it's a bit alienating to (some) female players when the female player character is dressed like a strumpet. (This is not to suggest it's as confronting as some games might be [External Link] The point is that the way the game was promoted was entirely unnecessary given this is a great RPG with a great plot, not some cheesy game like Risen.

If the characters and their interaction (one of the game's strong points) is really well developed why present the game in a way which will potentially make a significant part of your audience think "maybe this game isn't really meant for me".

Also, for the male players we aren't all 13-year-old boys any more. We aren't playing it because there's a girl in a platemail bikini on the cover. It's just a bit unnecessary, and juvenile isn't it?

Related, the ad for this page in the top right corner:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think people are confusing Early Access (sales paid) with an free open alpha/open beta test (publisher/developer pays).

They are entirely different, really. The business model of these games depends on the money coming from sales in the EA period, and that has a direct correlation with the time and money that can be spent on it. It creates a much higher level of uncertainty over a traditional publisher funding model.

The features come and go as they do in an ordinary traditionally published game (*cough* Aliens: Colonial Marines *cough*), but it's dependant on a constant revenue stream from people buying the game. Clearly when this game first "launched" sales were high, the predicted total sales supported a much more featureful game. Normal development slip and dwindling sales has cut it right back.

This isn't the end of the road for Early Access, it's a sign post telling early buyers to check their expectations. Game development is a business, and a successful business changes with its changing circumstances (internal and external). Early Access is quite useful for devs in that it provides an alternative funding model, heaps of feedback with customers, and customers get to feel part of the process too. If this was a traditionally funded game, would it have ever seen a release at all? How many games never make it passed the prototype stage because a publisher says "gamers don't want that"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments