Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Humble Indie Bundle 6 Ends At $2 Million USD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by stqn View Post
    Yes, games being open-sourced would be great, so that we can fix the bugs the developers can’t be bothered to fix themselves even though we paid them for working products. A lot of the bundle games didn’t or still don’t work on at least some linux setups, for example Fieldrunners’ sound bug hasn’t seen a fix even though the devs have been handed a fix very quickly after the game was released (unless they did release a fix but the bundle organizers “forgot” to mention it on their twitter feed). Some other games could be optimized or maybe have their shaders removed so they work on less powerful hw… And of course be ported to other platforms, and maintained to still be working 10 years from now. The possibilities would be endless.

    I still bought it, but now I give everything to the EFF, until I can try the games and confirm that they actually work fine.
    True, and I see your point but who do you think is going to do that? I think what would be a better choice is if the code was handed down to another independent group (kinda like Loki Software) and have them make it more compatible. That way we get the optimizations we want while the devs don't have to worry about their code being unjustly distributed and modified.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
      True, and I see your point but who do you think is going to do that? I think what would be a better choice is if the code was handed down to another independent group (kinda like Loki Software) and have them make it more compatible. That way we get the optimizations we want while the devs don't have to worry about their code being unjustly distributed and modified.
      The ports are already subcontracted, and any changes made to Free libraries used in the porting are passed upstream. For example, the Linux port of Bastion was subcontracted to OutOfOrder.cc, and they sent patches to MonoGame upstream.

      The time spent on the port is a question of money, no matter who does the port - developer time isn't free

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Rantpaste View Post
        I bought it too. It would be nice for them to open source the games once they're not making money anymore (to keep them working, port them to new platforms, etc.) but I'm not so hot on Open Source in games. I see games more like books or movies than software - something that is created and then I consume. Technically I'd prefer the line to be drawn within the game (open source software, proprietary art/sounds/storyline/etc) but I'm not so bothered as I am about the webserver I use or the word processor, etc.
        Open sourcing the games won't make much sense, if it is based on an engine which is not open source. And it seems that quite a few Unity, Source and Unigine games will find their way onto Linux platforms.
        Apart from that the open source aspect is much more relevant with applications, since I work with them and maintenance, frequent updates, and possible adaptation to new environments can be critical aspects.
        With games...? If it doesn't work on a future Ubuntu Vexed Viper - I move on to another game. Besides, some HIB games have been open sourced - so far I haven't heard of updates or reworks of those games. This vocal not-open-source "argument" sounds more like a sorry excuse of... ...freetards.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Tuxee View Post
          With games...? If it doesn't work on a future Ubuntu Vexed Viper - I move on to another game.
          I play a game I like forever. And I am not the only one. So do not just dismiss the problem by saying that it does not apply to you.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Tuxee View Post
            This vocal not-open-source "argument" sounds more like a sorry excuse of... ...freetards.
            Are you sure it's not an argument being used to avoid the fact that there is no binary compatibility in Linux at all? Drepper's no longer involved in glibc so there really is no excuse not to provide backwards compatibility.

            Comment


            • #16
              Torchlight baby! Hopefully we'll see torch2 go on linux as well in the near future. I haven't played anything with my buddies since the early (pre expansion) diablo2 days.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                Torchlight baby! Hopefully we'll see torch2 go on linux as well in the near future. I haven't played anything with my buddies since the early (pre expansion) diablo2 days.
                TL has been eating up most of my free time lately. Some of my clients were stuck between Diablo 2 + Median XL and Diablo 3. They're all playing TL on Linux now.

                Don't expect a Linux version of TL2 anytime soon: http://www.gamespot.com/news/no-plan...ht-mmo-6396935

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                  Are you sure it's not an argument being used to avoid the fact that there is no binary compatibility in Linux at all? Drepper's no longer involved in glibc so there really is no excuse not to provide backwards compatibility.
                  The linux kernel, glibc and libstdc++ all provide excelent backwards compatibility, it's just not done the "Windows way", and this makes windows developers that port their games to Linux confused.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                    The linux kernel, glibc and libstdc++ all provide excelent backwards compatibility, it's just not done the "Windows way", and this makes windows developers that port their games to Linux confused.
                    Bumping soname is all well & good, but most distributions won't want to keep shipping every soname forever - for example GCC 3.3 is still built to provide libstdc++5, but for how long?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      That's completely up to the distribution to decide, there is nothing stopping them to distribute libstdc++5 forever, this is exaclty what Microsoft does to preserve backwards compatibility in Windows, they ship dlls from old versions of their SO until they consider it no longer makes sense to do so.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X