5 ms·

As someone who ported a game to Linux, and the person in the office who debugged most of the issues, my experience is the exact opposite: users run fringe confi

As someone who ported a game to Linux, and the person in the office who debugged most of the issues, my experience is the exact opposite: users run fringe configurations and get angry when we don't support their exact use case. Or get angry that we use certain middleware. Or replace a random .so file with another one and then blame us when things crash. Or countless other support requests. Some concrete examples of tickets that were more unique: * Game doesn't work on ratpoison (turned out to be an issue with focus management, turns out that WM is not ICCCM compliant) * No sound when using OSSv4 (sorry, we support ALSA only) * Chat box does not work (turned out to be an input method issue, user was using fcitx, the toolkit we were using only supported ibus for text entry) * Game graphics are glitchy (bug in Intel mesa drivers, reported upstream, still unfixed https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/2565 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/2565 )

throw10920 5y ago
I stand corrected, then! Linux gamers will complain if you don't support a wide range of configurations. I guess I had hoped that they wouldn't be that entitled (I'm a Linux user only using Ubuntu because I know how difficult it is to support a bunch of whacky setups). I see two reasonable paths forward from here. The first is to intentionally avoid supporting Linux, pointing to examples like this one, until Linux gamers get over their entitlement at not having super-obscure things like ratpoison, OSSv4, or a particular configuration of DLLs installed supported by games. The second is to only support a single Linux configuration. This shouldn't be a ton of work, and still allows you to capture a small amount of revenue from the ecosystem (as well as getting some goodwill from the community - "no Linux support" is something people can beat you over the head with without sounding too unreasonable, but "doesn't support my Linux-from-scratch setup on my toaster's MIPS processor" is not).

throw10920 5y ago

I stand corrected, then! Linux gamers will complain if you don't support a wide range of configurations. I guess I had hoped that they wouldn't be that entitled (I'm a Linux user only using Ubuntu because I know how difficult it is to support a bunch of whacky setups). I see two reasonable paths forward from here. The first is to intentionally avoid supporting Linux, pointing to examples like this one, until Linux gamers get over their entitlement at not having super-obscure things like ratpoison, OSSv4, or a particular configuration of DLLs installed supported by games. The second is to only support a single Linux configuration. This shouldn't be a ton of work, and still allows you to capture a small amount of revenue from the ecosystem (as well as getting some goodwill from the community - "no Linux support" is something people can beat you over the head with without sounding too unreasonable, but "doesn't support my Linux-from-scratch setup on my toaster's MIPS processor" is not).