Player needs compatibility with a modern system - I won't deny any such request, it's normal; but others buying stuff in the house, not computers, because computer is good as it is will stick with a compatible version.
Let's take a tour in Android spirit. We have same application with three options - even more - plugins based:
- X86
- arm7a
- arm8a
Some of them are even smarter, ALL in one compatibility and you'll be surprised how nice do they work, not only as 3rd party but even set as System application. This is maturity in stage.
In UT stage we don't have OS problems as we do have INTERNAL problems. Some features were written on purpose without having option to get rid of them on demand - HARD-CODED and not a side effect of a compiler thing. This is pretty much disturbing. In time interval between 469a and 469b player could not play that FraGnBraG's Assault map because devs were changed without a fall-back option leaving player uncovered. What !? Player was forced to get back at 436 due to these practices of not leaving a fall-back. New dev is forcing things classes which are nowhere in old version but talking about compatibility - nice story... but facts are different and they are done on purpose not a compiling bug.
Then excuse my miss-understanding of everything but when I.T. dude has as project target A and B and is delivering target A, target B and some hidden never described Target C and Target D which are damaging not helping I find these as something from a hacker yard than something coming from an IT yard. And then I'm stepping back motivated already by some previous feelings and predictions about these sort of works. Feature I discovered by writing something for lightning up the stage due to "kick-box" type discussions about non-operational paths which... are all operational, demonstrated later that it was a bad idea poorly coded after all in new patch.
Direct sample Me vs I.T. boys.
ME:
LessTele4 has option for adding new starts into chain. Ok, Nelsona, what if this does damage ? Well, I used an option for disabling this feature if it does damage somewhere in the wild. Too many random, ideas might be against my feature and then... it won't be nice.
I.T.:
We are going to relink chain with any matter - all hard-coded, no disabling, no stories.
Sure. But if these are damaging how we can deal with them ? You have to wait 6 months for next update - don't play map.
whaat ?
And I'm not sure how much is added without reverting option... And not even compiling for those which are okay with their systems ?
Okay, enjoy the party... I'll stick to my another party then.
What was saying "Shadow", headers changed not supporting custom renders ? Where is development here ?
All right, I get it, never mind. We do only what we want because we can, right ?
Note: A PM coming at ut99.org told me that he is using Unreal225 - not 227 perhaps because of the same adds damaging MyLevel textures and adding bytes into Level... Relevant Deja Vu.
We are not talking then about systems and OS types compatibility, we talk about breaking old worked things and trashing them away. I don't see any maturity at this point when all has to be rewritten. A new software should be educated and not spitting venom at people's hard working time, because I'll respond in the same way, or I'll completely ignore all this stage.