No subject
Thu Mar 12 03:23:25 EDT 2009
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 < <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com">sir.brizz at gmail.com</a> > 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 < <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com">sir.brizz at gmail.com</a> > 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, < <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ceil420 at gmail.com">ceil420 at gmail.com</a> > 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 < <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com">sir.brizz at gmail.com</a> >
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:38:25
To: < <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ut3 at icculus.org">ut3 at icculus.org</a> >
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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"< <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sir.brizz at gmail.com">sir.brizz at gmail.com</a> >
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ut3 at icculus.org">ut3 at icculus.org</a>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 11:26:53 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date
Well, this post:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=584654">http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=584654</a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ceil420 at gmail.com">ceil420 at gmail.com</a> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ut3 at icculus.org">ut3 at icculus.org</a> 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
More information about the ut3
mailing list