[ut3] Official release date

ceil420 at gmail.com ceil420 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 17:17:20 EST 2009


If they abandoned it entirely, they'd alienate an entire fan base, not just their mac/linux fans. They do got other shit going on, but you can't tell me that wouldn't be a big hit to their wallets.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sir Brizz <sir.brizz at gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:09:19 
To: <ut3 at icculus.org>
Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date

"Still that information is still the same as we got a year ago :S, so 
basicly it's not news, it's confirming that nothing has changed.(still 
good, this is still better then when they would have binned it :-) )"

Yes, it's just good to hear ANYTHING. Silence could mean anything, "No 
ETA" means that at least they haven't scrapped it yet.

"I also think EPIC will not put any resources in recoding a buggy 
version of UT3 to a Linux/Mac version untill they are 'sure' to have a 
solid UT3 version. Else they would have to maintain multiple 
versions(Windows/Consoles/Valve/Linux/Mac/'not-sure-which-versions-are-promised') 
of UT3, and testing them all too."

This is possibly a perfectly good point. It could be that the Linux 
binary has been done for quite a while now and ready to go but Epic 
wanted to wait to release it until the expansion pack comes out 
(basically UT3's UT2004).

"About your 1) you almost sound like a salesman, forgetting the details 
when it's convenient, patches followed up a bit more rapidly then you 
stated, you only stated the final patches."

And that was intentional. I don't really presume to know much about the 
inner working of Epic's business, however I do understand that they have 
hundreds of licensees they have to support, two game franchises, three 
subsidiaries they have to manage, etc. They are not the small company 
that made Unreal/UT or the only slightly larger company that made 
UT2003/UT2004. They have A LOT more going on in their business model 
than they did before, and really this only helps to explain the time 
between patches for UT3 (let alone that they are now supporting three 
platforms for it). I'm happy that they are continuing support at all. 
The way they've been treated over it, they could have just abandoned it 
and moved on to something else.

Brizz

On 2/9/09 2:24 PM, [FnG] Lambik wrote:
> "And this discussion between you and I here has little, if not 
> nothing, to do with the Linux binaries, so I'm not sure why you are 
> even bringing them up in that respect"
> As I see the complaints about the linux binary is basicly the support 
> EPIC is giving(not or verly little), and that is not only linux 
> related, but on UT3 in general.
> I understand you can't give a timeline, you're only working with info 
> handed to you, fair enough.
> Still that information is still the same as we got a year ago :S, so 
> basicly it's not news, it's confirming that nothing has changed.(still 
> good, this is still better then when they would have binned it :-) )
> I also think EPIC will not put any resources in recoding a buggy 
> version of UT3 to a Linux/Mac version untill they are 'sure' to have a 
> solid UT3 version. Else they would have to maintain multiple 
> versions(Windows/Consoles/Valve/Linux/Mac/'not-sure-which-versions-are-promised') 
> of UT3, and testing them all too.
> It is weird that they don't have a planning yet on when the linux 
> binary will see the light, they will atleast have a planning like 'not 
> this year'  or 'we start after the massive patch with recoding', but 
> nothing of the kind. Sorry, but I am not very possitive about this.
> About your 1) you almost sound like a salesman, forgetting the details 
> when it's convenient, patches followed up a bit more rapidly then you 
> stated, you only stated the final patches.
> but you're right that has nothing to do with the linuxbinary 
> discussion, sorry for that.
> Lambik
> PS. You do type a lot faster then I do :P
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Sir Brizz <sir.brizz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     You obviously had no intention to read my last email, right?
>
>     1) No, it's not what you mentioned at all. Unreal never had all
>     it's problems fixed, UT came out by the time that happened (only
>     18 months later) :p UT2003, as well, never had  final patch that
>     fixed all of it's problems, UT2004 came out before that (roughly
>     18 months later). Now, we are getting a patch which, after all the
>     most major bugs have ALREADY been fixed, fixes almost every single
>     complaint people have with the game ROUGHLY 18 MONTHS LATER. What
>     has seriously changed here?
>
>     2) My point with my second statement is that the demo should have
>     told you all the story you needed to know. If you couldn't have
>     been more unhappy with the demo, why did you buy the game? They
>     couldn't have fixed the thinga that made you unhappy in Two Weeks
>     (tm).
>
>     RC7 doesn't prove anything, as I said before it could have been a
>     manufacturing mishap for all you know.
>
>     And this discussion between you and I here has little, if not
>     nothing, to do with the Linux binaries, so I'm not sure why you
>     are even bringing them up in that respect.
>
>     I can't give you a timeline, all Steve said was that it is still
>     being worked on and he has no ETA. I'm personally just happy to
>     know that they haven't binned it after all this time. I wasn't
>     being vague, I was passing along information.
>
>     Brizz
>
>
>     On 2/9/09 1:37 PM, [FnG] Lambik wrote:
>>     You do copy well Sir Brizz ;)
>>     1) that is exactly what I also mentioned, but thanks anyway
>>        {In the past EPIC had released UT versions which at start had
>>     problems, performance, bugs, etc, but they did fix the urgent
>>     matters within weeks, and the other stuff after a few months}
>>     2) this is no more info then 1) already displaying,  what is your
>>     point with statement 2) ?
>>     The RC7 thing proves it's a rush job, but that isn't the big
>>     issue, it's the support afterwards, like  ~ 1½ year later a
>>     massive patch is planned :(
>>     Again the mentioned 'massive patch' doesn't say if the linux
>>     server will be released, not even to mention the linux/Mac client.
>>     The server side has been supported for linux, I am wondering will
>>     it be released at the same time or again ~ week later.
>>     [quote "Sir Brizz"]I thought some of you might like to know that
>>     Steve Polge just contacted me and told me that the Linux binary
>>     has not been abandoned.[\quote]
>>     ;-) You sound like EPIC, just as vague. If you are in contact
>>     with him, could you ask him to be a bit more specific on the "when" ?
>>     Because that is the real question here, but ofcourse you do know
>>     that.
>>     Please take your time reading, that saves communication :P
>>     Lambik
>>
>>     On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sir Brizz <sir.brizz at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         I'd say you had plenty of indications that the game was not
>>         going to live u to your expectations.
>>
>>         1) Epic has always had subpar releases of Unreal games on the
>>         first installment of an engine version. See: Unreal,
>>         UT2003/Unreal 2.
>>         2) The demo was released only a couple of weeks before the
>>         game went gold. They couldn't possibly have improved it much
>>         in that time.
>>
>>         There are even more than that but those are simply the key
>>         things you could have looked at before buying the game.
>>
>>         As for it being "RC7", what is that supposed to prove? RC
>>         stands for Release Candidate, so no matter what they released
>>         it would have been a release candidate. If you're talking
>>         about the labeling on the meta info of the disc, are you sure
>>         that wasn't a manufacturing mishap? :p
>>
>>         If you look at the patch notes for the massive patch that
>>         they are releasing soon, you'll see that Epic HAS been
>>         listening to feedback all this time, despite what the
>>         pessimists in the community would have everyone believe. Epic
>>         has always listened to constructive feedback on their games
>>         (at least UT) and this patch proves they still do, the people
>>         that are complaining now are the ones who didn't give any
>>         constructive feedback so their voices weren't heard.
>>
>>         Brizz
>>
>>
>>         On 2/9/09 12:08 PM, [FnG] Lambik wrote:
>>>         [quote "Sir Brizz"]They delivered a functional game. If you
>>>         bought it the way it was packaged, you have no one to blame
>>>         but yourself if it disappoints you.[\quote]
>>>         It's not only the linux community, but the wide spread of PC
>>>         gamers are complaining about the support that EPIC has shown
>>>         the past year.
>>>         The product which was released was not finished, infact I
>>>         bought a S.E. version which was actualy the RC.7  :S
>>>         I did not buy it to play it on linux, but even the windows
>>>         version was not the quality we as UT community are use to.
>>>         In the past EPIC had released UT versions which at start had
>>>         problems, performance, bugs, etc, but they did fix the
>>>         urgent matters within weeks, and the other stuff after a few
>>>         months.
>>>         That is what this community was expecting with this release
>>>         too, giving support, using the feedback we as UT ppl were
>>>         supplying to improve the game,
>>>         giving the ppl the sense they are part of the process.
>>>         When you take a look at how many servers that are running
>>>         and being used, compare that with any other game of the same
>>>         level, then EPIC should be ashamed.
>>>         A successor of UT2k4 should atleast contain the same
>>>         functionality.
>>>         So in short to Sir Brizz, *yes we are only to blame but
>>>         ourselfes*. The fact remains that we are entitled to spread
>>>         the word that EPIC has failed to keep their promise,
>>>         that they have let down our trust, that our advise is not to
>>>         buy the game.
>>>         You may call it complaining, I see it as warning other users
>>>         for the bad quality game EPIC has created.
>>>         EPIC has proven the following :
>>>         "Results of the past are never a guarentee for the future"
>>>         just my 2 cts,
>>>         Lambik
>>>         On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:45 PM, <ceil420 at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:ceil420 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Well I'm tired of you acting as though Linux users that
>>>             bought the game just did so with no promise of
>>>             functionality in their platform of choice. They were led
>>>             to believe they would be able to play the game on Linux
>>>             at or shortly after release. The blame for the wasted
>>>             money may be 80% on the players, but Epic themselves
>>>             also shoulder some of that blame. Especially considering
>>>             their history of Tux-friendliness; particularly with
>>>             this line of games. This isn't Blizzard or EA we're
>>>             talking about, but a company known to support. Linux
>>>             with past titles, and one that promised playability with
>>>             the latest as well.
>>>             Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>>
>>>             -----Original Message-----
>>>             From: Sir Brizz <sir.brizz at gmail.com
>>>             <mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>             Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:38:25
>>>             To: <ut3 at icculus.org <mailto:ut3 at icculus.org>>
>>>             Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date
>>>
>>>             Fair enough, My response to your message wasn't really
>>>             intended to
>>>             target you. I can completely understand people buying
>>>             the game with the
>>>             expectation that the client would get released, I just
>>>             wish people on
>>>             here would use a little more brain power instead of just
>>>             slapping the
>>>             blame on Epic as if they had no involvement in the
>>>             decision making
>>>             process at all.
>>>
>>>             Brizz
>>>
>>>             On 2/6/09 11:32 AM, David L. Willson wrote:
>>>             > I didn't personally buy the game, but I understand the
>>>             motivation of those that did.  It's important to show
>>>             approval for ISV's that are allowing their customers
>>>             freedom of choice.  The best way to show that approval
>>>             is to buy their stuph.  I think it's important to wait
>>>             until the cross-platform goal is achieved, but I
>>>             understand the desire to reward Epic's promise or
>>>             intent.  I wanted to, too, but because I've been in
>>>             software a while, I thought it better to wait and reward
>>>             achievement.
>>>             >
>>>             > David L. Willson
>>>             > Network Engineer
>>>             > MCT, MCSE, Linux+
>>>             > tel://720.333.LANS
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > ----- Original Message -----
>>>             > From: "Sir Brizz"<sir.brizz at gmail.com
>>>             <mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com>>
>>>             > To: ut3 at icculus.org <mailto:ut3 at icculus.org>
>>>             > Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 11:26:53 AM GMT -07:00
>>>             US/Canada Mountain
>>>             > Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date
>>>             >
>>>             > Well, this post:
>>>             >
>>>             > http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=584654
>>>             >
>>>             > Was made 5 days before the game shipped, and indicates
>>>             that the Linux binary was not ready (something that
>>>             could have easily been inferred from other forum posts
>>>             around the same time).
>>>             >
>>>             > And, I'm sorry if you're trusting, but, frankly, the
>>>             Linux binary could come out in 5 years and they wouldn't
>>>             have lied. They never gave a timeline, and if you
>>>             assumed that it was about to be released, you were
>>>             fooling yourself into it.
>>>             >
>>>             > I agree that the binary should be out by now, but I'm
>>>             not involved in Epic's business so I don't know what is
>>>             holding it back. Recent posts by Ryan Gordon suggest
>>>             that the binary is practically (if not completely) done,
>>>             but it's likely stuck behind the same legal hurdle that
>>>             it was before. What is Epic meant to do about that?
>>>             >
>>>             > And it just doesn't change the fact that Epic didn't
>>>             do anything but give you consolation that a binary would
>>>             come out at some future point, and based on that you
>>>             made the decision to buy the game. You still bought the
>>>             game knowing that what you were buying it for did not
>>>             exist yet. That was your decision, not Epic's.
>>>             >
>>>             > Brizz
>>>             >
>>>             > On 2/6/09 11:20 AM, David L. Willson wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             > There's that fine line again, Brizz.  Epic (your car
>>>             dealer) didn't say "should be".  They said, originally,
>>>             that it "would be" in the box.  Then just before release
>>>             they said, "OK, it's not going to make it into the box,
>>>             but it will be released."  Not "should be", but "will
>>>             be".  Which led some trusting souls to buy the game on
>>>             faith, led other, less trusting souls to wait, and then
>>>             led trusting and non-trusting souls alike, to, at some
>>>             point, say, "Well, what the ~fuck~, Epic?"
>>>             >
>>>             > David L. Willson
>>>             > Network Engineer
>>>             > MCT, MCSE, Linux+
>>>             > tel://720.333.LANS
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > ----- Original Message -----
>>>             > From: ceil420 at gmail.com <mailto:ceil420 at gmail.com> To:
>>>             ut3 at icculus.org <mailto:ut3 at icculus.org> Sent: Friday,
>>>             February 6, 2009 11:16:02 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
>>>             > Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date
>>>             >
>>>             > Except that we originally weren't told 'in the
>>>             future'. The dealer told us the GPS was included. The
>>>             dealer lied. At least admit _that_ much.
>>>             >
>>>             > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             >  From : Sir Brizz
>>>             > Date : Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:08:33 -0700
>>>             > To :<ut3 at icculus.org <mailto:ut3 at icculus.org>>
>>>              Subject : Re: [ut3] Official release date
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > Yes, Linux is not suitable for games. Actually, Linux
>>>             is fine for games, games are simply not made for Linux.
>>>             So if you're a PC gamer, anything but Windows is not a
>>>             choice (and if you say Wine works great, I'll slap you).
>>>             >
>>>             > Now, I do have to admit a little guilt in responding
>>>             here, because I knew all you guys like to bitch and moan
>>>             anytime someone comes in here that doesn't agree with
>>>             you, but sorry. The reality of this situation is that
>>>             you are bitter and want to blame someone other than
>>>             yourselves. This is really more like if you called up
>>>             the dealership, asked if the car had GPS, told no but it
>>>             should be released free at some point in the future,
>>>             bought the car anyway and then proceeded to complain
>>>             that the GPS was still not out after a year. You bought
>>>             the car despite the fact that it was missing the one
>>>             thing you wanted it for, you're the one to blame in that
>>>             scenario.
>>>             >
>>>             > Brizz
>>>             >
>>>             > On 2/6/09 10:39 AM, [FnG] Lambik wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > The person that told 'It has GPS in it' happens to be
>>>             the salesperson, and then yes you can expect to have GPS
>>>             in it !
>>>             > Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but
>>>             seems to me your only business here is to stir thing up,
>>>             > as you have state to play games on windows only.(Linux
>>>             not suitable ??)
>>>             > Pre ordering a game has the risk of getting something
>>>             that isn't quite what you expect of it, but in this case
>>>             there has been promised support for linux OS aswell.
>>>             > Epic has the reputation to support linux on all UT
>>>             series, which has formed a good basis of trust, which
>>>             they have broken, and that is why ppl are upset with EPIC.
>>>             > That is something they have every right to.
>>>             >
>>>             > Lambik
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Sir Brizz<
>>>             sir.brizz at gmail.com <mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com>>  wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > For what? They didn't market UT3 as having Linux
>>>             binaries included or available.
>>>             >
>>>             > The problem here is that Epic never guaranteed
>>>             anything. I appreciate you wanting brand new boxes or
>>>             whatever your case may be, however that doesn't change
>>>             the fact that you bought something that didn't include
>>>             the sole thing you bought it for. Can you imagine,
>>>             taking this same thing to a more terrible and surely
>>>             less appropriate analogy, if you bought a car because
>>>             someone said it had GPS in it, never test drove it, and
>>>             realized after purchasing it that it didn't have GPS in
>>>             it? Would you blame the person who told you or yourself
>>>             for not looking into it more?
>>>             >
>>>             > I understand that people wanted and were expecting and
>>>             (possibly) promised Linux binaries and are upset, but,
>>>             frankly, you DON'T have anyone to blame but yourself if
>>>             you paid the money for it already. Did Epic make you
>>>             spend that money? YOU were encouraged by what they said,
>>>             YOU made a decision, and YOU spent the money.
>>>             >
>>>             > Brizz
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > On 2/6/09 10:14 AM, Luiz Gustavo Angelo wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             > Epic could be sued by this, couldn't ??
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Matthias Bach<
>>>             marix at marix.org <mailto:marix at marix.org>>  wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > Hi!
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > On Friday 06 February 2009 17:57:02 Sir Brizz wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             > And for those of you whining about how you bought the
>>>             game and haven't
>>>             > played it because there is no Linux client, sorry but
>>>             maybe you should
>>>             > have waited to buy it until there actually was the
>>>             only thing you were
>>>             > buying it for? That seems like the practical thing to
>>>             do in any
>>>             > situation. You are missing the point. When I ordered
>>>             the game there had been a statement
>>>             > by Epic that there would be a Linux-Installer on disc,
>>>             as it had been with
>>>             > 2K4. Later they said it wouldn't be on disk, but
>>>             available on the day of
>>>             > release. Therefore, as I kind of like to have nice
>>>             game boxes that I can show
>>>             > of, I did not bother to cancel my preorder. The
>>>             problem is that I trusted Epic
>>>             > to keep to their promises.
>>>             >
>>>             > Did you buy Prey the day it came out hoping that Ryan
>>>             Gordon
>>>             > would release a Linux binary for it, too? No I didn't,
>>>             because nobody promised that Prey would be ported. When it
>>>             > finally was ported this was a pleasent surprise.
>>>             >
>>>             > If you want to be a thrifty
>>>             > consumer, then be thrifty. And if you aren't thrifty,
>>>             don't whine that
>>>             > you made a mistake and try to blame it on Epic or
>>>             anyone else. You don't
>>>             > have anyone to blame but yourselves. Maybe I have, but
>>>             then it is not for expecting Epic to make a port, but for
>>>             > trusting Epic to deliver the software I ordered.
>>>             >
>>>             > Personally, I'm sure a Linux binary will eventually
>>>             come out for UT3 and
>>>             > when it does I will probably use it. Maybe it will,
>>>             after all it's already supposed to be done. The real
>>>             question
>>>             > is, will their still body to play against. Will the
>>>             engine still be something
>>>             > competitive to base your mods on? By the time it will
>>>             probably take one could
>>>             > just as well start writing an own engine ...
>>>             >
>>>             > Regards,
>>>             > Matthias
>>>             >
>>>             > ---
>>>             > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
>>>             ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
>>>             <mailto:ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org>
>>>             > Mailing list archives:
>>>             http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>
>>>
>>>             ---
>>>             To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
>>>             ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
>>>             <mailto:ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org>
>>>             Mailing list archives:
>>>             http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/ut3/attachments/20090209/cb706b73/attachment.htm>


More information about the ut3 mailing list