3 ms·

If their one shot release isn't good enough, they deserve all the flak they are getting. I do have empathy with them getting frustrated, but the root cause is t

by madez 8y ago

If their one shot release isn't good enough, they deserve all the flak they are getting. I do have empathy with them getting frustrated, but the root cause is their approach.

wtracy 8y ago
The original post in the thread basically said that Linux support is easy if you just make a new release every time the libraries you depend on make a breaking change. (Or a GCC update breaks binary compatibility for everything.) Even if an initial release of a Linux game is flawless, it tends to stop working with the next major distro release. (Unless it's statically linked to everything, or uses something like Flatpack to distribute all its own dependencies. Both options have their own disadvantages.) You also have to understand that, from a business perspective, game companies have much more in common with a Hollywood studio than a normal software company. Movies don't get patches. Occasionally they get re-releases for new formats, but at that point consumers are expected to go pay for it again. None of that applies to today's slot machine^H^H mobile game companies that rely on in-app purchases, or MMOs that rely on monthly subscriptions. The former would never survive in the Linux world anyway, and the latter are often quite successful on Linux, even if it's only in the form of official support for Wine/Cedega.
- madez 8y ago
  I understand the business aspect that the Hollywood model is possibly incompatible with games in free software systems (i.e. "Linux"). There are other business models to make games, though. The problems are real and I think it is natural that they are there, because the movie model is suboptimal. I see similar pains with Android device manufacturers and updates to released devices. That pain is because they are doing it wrong (i.e. not mainlining and doing things binary). That pain is a feature, not a bug. It is a constant reminder that the approach is wrong.

by madez 8y ago

If their one shot release isn't good enough, they deserve all the flak they are getting. I do have empathy with them getting frustrated, but the root cause is their approach.

wtracy 8y ago

The original post in the thread basically said that Linux support is easy if you just make a new release every time the libraries you depend on make a breaking change. (Or a GCC update breaks binary compatibility for everything.) Even if an initial release of a Linux game is flawless, it tends to stop working with the next major distro release. (Unless it's statically linked to everything, or uses something like Flatpack to distribute all its own dependencies. Both options have their own disadvantages.) You also have to understand that, from a business perspective, game companies have much more in common with a Hollywood studio than a normal software company. Movies don't get patches. Occasionally they get re-releases for new formats, but at that point consumers are expected to go pay for it again. None of that applies to today's slot machine^H^H mobile game companies that rely on in-app purchases, or MMOs that rely on monthly subscriptions. The former would never survive in the Linux world anyway, and the latter are often quite successful on Linux, even if it's only in the form of official support for Wine/Cedega.

madez 8y ago
I understand the business aspect that the Hollywood model is possibly incompatible with games in free software systems (i.e. "Linux"). There are other business models to make games, though. The problems are real and I think it is natural that they are there, because the movie model is suboptimal. I see similar pains with Android device manufacturers and updates to released devices. That pain is because they are doing it wrong (i.e. not mainlining and doing things binary). That pain is a feature, not a bug. It is a constant reminder that the approach is wrong.