4 ms·

This is unfairly downvoted IMO, because I think you're actually hitting on a very important point. Linux users tend to be enthusiasts, people who love software,

This is unfairly downvoted IMO, because I think you're actually hitting on a very important point. Linux users tend to be enthusiasts, people who love software, and also primarily interact with a community where the "developer/user" is the most important figure, the one whom everything is designed around. In the Linux community, at least unless a project has a toxic developer (there are a few), bug reports are Always Good. They're how we make the software WE use better on the systems that WE use it on. Even if a report isn't fully actionable (e.g. it's a problem with graphics drivers), the report is often helpful because the bug tracker is probably public and we can try to find workarounds, or at least flag the issue for others. For closed source commercial software, especially cases where a tiny number of developers are working on the code, bug reports are Always Bad. They represent more work, work that you don't want to have to do, because at the end of the day these are people who already bought the game. You've gotten as much out of them as you're going to get out of them. If they're more trouble than they're worth (someone else in this thread claimed 90% of bug reports out of 1% of purchases), then it's obvious you should just ignore them or not port your game to their platform at all. You'd think this attitude would be different for issues that affect a lot of people: a good bug report can help you fix widespread problems that are hurting your players, but actually even this is rare. See the story of this guy fixing a bug causing 6 minute startup times that affected at least thousands of people using reverse engineering, when the developer ignored the problem for years: https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times-by-70/ https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times... So I think you're right, these are mostly people enthusiastic about a piece of computer software instinctively trying to collaboratively improve it for everyone. But because development is so limited (there's only one person reading bug reports and working on the code), those reports are experienced as frustrating rather than helpful. Worse still, because the software is commercial there may be an unspoken feeling that support is owed for the software because the user paid for it.

godelski 5y ago
While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying (as a linux user myself) the problem is that we have to recognize that developers have limited bandwidth. Windows is also generating more revenue for them, so it is going to take priority. Though for an indie game it probably isn't crazy to make the code open sourced and then put those users to work for you. That can really help reduce the burden. But of course opens you up for people stealing your software (which let's also be real, happens anyways).
- bscphil 5y ago
  No, I agree totally with that. I think that the situation that exists, while unfortunate, is pretty understandable from all sides.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> They represent more work, work that you don't want to have to do, because at the end of the day these are people who already bought the game. You've gotten as much out of them as you're going to get out of them. This is such a bad attitude. The game is supposed to work correctly without any bugs. People who paid money for the game deserve continued support. It doesn't matter how much time and money the developers have to spend, that's their problem. If the software is defective, consumers should be entitled to a refund. That ought to motivate companies not to release shoddy work.
- username90 5y ago
  Which is why developers don't release on Linux, since they would have to test for so many strange driver setups to ensure things works correctly. The bug reports you get from linux are not "this gameplay is bad", but stuff like "my mouse cursor isn't displayed correctly here" which works fine in windows but somehow their setup screws it up. Trying to get graphics to reliably work in all linux versions is a lot of work.
- pizza234 5y ago
  > The game is supposed to work correctly without any bugs. This is not real-world software engineering :) Pretty much any software has bugs; maybe surprisingly to non-programmers, games are especially complex (in primis, architecturally). In real world, one can realistically talk about, let's say, an acceptable threshold of bugs. > People who paid money for the game deserve continued support And this is not real-world (game) business. Whether one likes it or not, there is a per-unit profit, and the corresponding value in terms of support is very limited. An ideal solution to this is open sourcing games after a certain time (Id Software used to do it), but this is not realistic. I wish it, though! > That ought to motivate companies not to release shoddy work One can't really force a company not to do shoddy work. The gaming market is a radically free one, unlike other constrained markets, like internet providers. Customers are actually entitled to have the money refunded, at least on Steam. Gaming journalism actually has been including bugginess in games evaluation for a while, so buyers can decide in an informed fashion.

godelski 5y ago

While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying (as a linux user myself) the problem is that we have to recognize that developers have limited bandwidth. Windows is also generating more revenue for them, so it is going to take priority. Though for an indie game it probably isn't crazy to make the code open sourced and then put those users to work for you. That can really help reduce the burden. But of course opens you up for people stealing your software (which let's also be real, happens anyways).

bscphil 5y ago
No, I agree totally with that. I think that the situation that exists, while unfortunate, is pretty understandable from all sides.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> They represent more work, work that you don't want to have to do, because at the end of the day these are people who already bought the game. You've gotten as much out of them as you're going to get out of them. This is such a bad attitude. The game is supposed to work correctly without any bugs. People who paid money for the game deserve continued support. It doesn't matter how much time and money the developers have to spend, that's their problem. If the software is defective, consumers should be entitled to a refund. That ought to motivate companies not to release shoddy work.

username90 5y ago
Which is why developers don't release on Linux, since they would have to test for so many strange driver setups to ensure things works correctly. The bug reports you get from linux are not "this gameplay is bad", but stuff like "my mouse cursor isn't displayed correctly here" which works fine in windows but somehow their setup screws it up. Trying to get graphics to reliably work in all linux versions is a lot of work.
pizza234 5y ago
> The game is supposed to work correctly without any bugs. This is not real-world software engineering :) Pretty much any software has bugs; maybe surprisingly to non-programmers, games are especially complex (in primis, architecturally). In real world, one can realistically talk about, let's say, an acceptable threshold of bugs. > People who paid money for the game deserve continued support And this is not real-world (game) business. Whether one likes it or not, there is a per-unit profit, and the corresponding value in terms of support is very limited. An ideal solution to this is open sourcing games after a certain time (Id Software used to do it), but this is not realistic. I wish it, though! > That ought to motivate companies not to release shoddy work One can't really force a company not to do shoddy work. The gaming market is a radically free one, unlike other constrained markets, like internet providers. Customers are actually entitled to have the money refunded, at least on Steam. Gaming journalism actually has been including bugginess in games evaluation for a while, so buyers can decide in an informed fashion.