And so the Minecraft Community does what it does best; muck with Mojang code until we get a result we like. How long you wager until we have a Modloader equivalent?
FTB - Curse Update
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
Don't feed the trolls.
Also don't post stupid comments trying to get attention either.
Also don't post stupid comments trying to get attention either.
I think you are way to stressed about this point, I've yet to encounter "premium only" content with curse, the only thing I know of are premium only give-aways and ease of access due to download queue and simultaneous downloads
What if "simultaneous downloads" in the context of Minecraft mods means "more than one modpack at once", or "downloads faster, by downloading from multiple sources simultaneously"?
I think that either of those would be improvements over the current FTB launcher rather than artificial restrictions to try to sell premium like the discussion seems like it might be implying.
I think that either of those would be improvements over the current FTB launcher rather than artificial restrictions to try to sell premium like the discussion seems like it might be implying.
As long as the Curse Client retains the FTB Launcher's current free features and ad-freeness, I'm alright. Also, unsure if this has been answered, but will third party modpacks be effected?
As well, what is the point of migrating the forums from XenForo to Cobalt when the community is perfectly fine with Cobalt? The customisation is fine. Is Tapatalk in Cobalt? If not, that's an extreme disadvantage. Someone mentioned not having alerts. Another disadvantage? Perhaps something could be made to weigh up the points? Yes, I know this is in development. Just suggesting.
As well, what is the point of migrating the forums from XenForo to Cobalt when the community is perfectly fine with Cobalt? The customisation is fine. Is Tapatalk in Cobalt? If not, that's an extreme disadvantage. Someone mentioned not having alerts. Another disadvantage? Perhaps something could be made to weigh up the points? Yes, I know this is in development. Just suggesting.
Last edited:
There are many good points raised here with regard to possible multiple-platform support. We've had the whole debate of native platform support versus common UI support, Windows (>80%) versus the remaining 20%, or commercial sense versus ownership. I'm not going to contribute further to the acrimony, beyond describing my reasons for running Minecraft on Linux since beta-1.7.3.
Put simply, every time I tried running Minecraft (vanilla) I would invariably end up having a fatal error in atioglxx.dll—a problem still not resolved to this date, even after several graphics driver updates. I lack the knowledge to dig properly into what's causing Minecraft to die, and I'm just one user. Why the ____ would anyone listen to just me? They won't, put bluntly. For most people, Minecraft "Just Works™" on Windows. But for me it doesn't. I can live with that, because I have another option—Linux.
On Linux, Minecraft works for me. Even modded Minecraft mostly works, as long as the mods play nice together. I might not get the smooth framerate that other games normally give me under Windows, but the simple fact that it won't fall over is practically priceless to me.
Regarding the current FTB client, I have the same happy tale. It just works. I'd like that to continue, regardless of whether it's FTB or Curse providing what I use the client to do. I just tried the Curse client setup program under Linux using Mono, and got told "File does not contain a valid CIL image". I'd like this to change, though I suspect if the client (or the setup program) uses WPF, I'll be disappointed unless mono ever supports WPF to the same level as the client function calls. I don't want to be forced over to the Windows platform just to have a program that'll download mod collections for me.
I seriously want to continue to be able to download mod packs, and start them up. I understand that the client is moving away from being a launcher to just a front-end for the Vanilla launcher. I also understand that the old client won't be going away until the Curse client has feature-parity for Windows, though Linux support has not been promised officially by Curse representatives.
I'd even be prepared to put up with downloading mod packs from a web page if it came with particularly clear instructions for how to create a profile that the modpacks could go into. Other projects explain how to create a new profile, in fact Forge and liteloader even create a profile for you as part of their respective installations. So the precedent has already been set. Heck, I could possibly even modify minecrafty to do the same job, though it wouldn't be easy as that's purely bash code and currently only fetches launchers and vanilla minecraft versions. But, I digress.
Please consider me as another Linux user. I might be only a 1%, but I can't get it to work well any other way—and I don't have a Mac.
Here ends my simple plea...
(Post 5)
Put simply, every time I tried running Minecraft (vanilla) I would invariably end up having a fatal error in atioglxx.dll—a problem still not resolved to this date, even after several graphics driver updates. I lack the knowledge to dig properly into what's causing Minecraft to die, and I'm just one user. Why the ____ would anyone listen to just me? They won't, put bluntly. For most people, Minecraft "Just Works™" on Windows. But for me it doesn't. I can live with that, because I have another option—Linux.
On Linux, Minecraft works for me. Even modded Minecraft mostly works, as long as the mods play nice together. I might not get the smooth framerate that other games normally give me under Windows, but the simple fact that it won't fall over is practically priceless to me.
Regarding the current FTB client, I have the same happy tale. It just works. I'd like that to continue, regardless of whether it's FTB or Curse providing what I use the client to do. I just tried the Curse client setup program under Linux using Mono, and got told "File does not contain a valid CIL image". I'd like this to change, though I suspect if the client (or the setup program) uses WPF, I'll be disappointed unless mono ever supports WPF to the same level as the client function calls. I don't want to be forced over to the Windows platform just to have a program that'll download mod collections for me.
I seriously want to continue to be able to download mod packs, and start them up. I understand that the client is moving away from being a launcher to just a front-end for the Vanilla launcher. I also understand that the old client won't be going away until the Curse client has feature-parity for Windows, though Linux support has not been promised officially by Curse representatives.
I'd even be prepared to put up with downloading mod packs from a web page if it came with particularly clear instructions for how to create a profile that the modpacks could go into. Other projects explain how to create a new profile, in fact Forge and liteloader even create a profile for you as part of their respective installations. So the precedent has already been set. Heck, I could possibly even modify minecrafty to do the same job, though it wouldn't be easy as that's purely bash code and currently only fetches launchers and vanilla minecraft versions. But, I digress.
Please consider me as another Linux user. I might be only a 1%, but I can't get it to work well any other way—and I don't have a Mac.
Here ends my simple plea...
(Post 5)
Button 1 is a premium only function which updates all mods listed below which have updates available
without premium you'd have buttons on 2-5 to update them manually by clicking, wait for the download (depending on your dl speed) and click the next one
So you are not missing out on content, you are not even downloading slower you just have to click more.
I am not sure what you are getting at. I've used the curse client for wow for... well since it was released, I have only got my Complimentary (free) curse premium account for the last... year or so. I would highly recommend the client for everything even without premium
The client that FTB will be using isn't the same as Curse client.
It will be on Curse's new platform.
@Kaelten can add more information on this
It will be on Curse's new platform.
@Kaelten can add more information on this
Best post everThe client that FTB will be using isn't the same as Curse client.
It will be on Curse's new platform.
@Kaelten can add more information on this
Well I have good news and bad news. I can't confirm that the new CurseClient will work on Linux. Well if I'm honest it probably wont from what I've heard, it's a very small user base in comparison to windows and I don't think that Curse see it as financially viable to make a client with all the features they plan for such a small user base, however much I may disagree with that it does make sense. What I can commit to is that Linux users WILL be able to download FTB modpacks. Somehow. One option is the one that you specified where you would be able to download the files from the website and just drop them inside of your minecraft directory. While not exactly user friendly at the end of the day you're using Linux. You can handle dragging and dropping some files, it's not like that's the hardest thing you have to do while using Linux. There are some other options floating round as well but at this stage nothing is set in stone on this. But to stress that point, Linux users WILL be able to download and install FTB modpacks (and I would assume any other packs on curseforge)
That's good enough for those of us who use Linux.
I don't run Minecraft on Linux anymore, but I used to. I don't use the FTB launcher for anything other than downloading the mods anyway (I roll my own in a new Minecraft folder), so it would be the same thing.
Currently anyone can go to the FTB site, download FTB, select a pack, log in, and play without ever having to have a FTB account. Will the new client require players to have a curse account for anything that we can already do?
As long as somebody maintains the modpack XML file, and as long as Curse provides a direct download link to the packs (since I'm assuming you won't have Creeperhost storage anymore), then Linux and Mac users shouldn't really have much to worry about. This being done officially by FTB would be best to ensure a safe client, but the launcher being open-source means technically any of these Linux folk can maintain the XML somewhere and just edit the client source to point it to where to get that and the pack zips from Curse.
This is a good question. Though actually, you can download the launcher without a FTB Account, but downloading a pack and using it requires a Minecraft account(not that you didn't imply this, just clarifying here). I hope that the system for the Curse Launcher ends up being the same; can ignore the need for a curse account, but you have to have a Minecraft account to download anything for Minecraft.
I'd be fine with a option to use a Curse Account if it, say, allowed you to select mods you use for a pack and thus allow you to sync this to your account, so if you play Minecraft on multiple computers and use a custom pack, you can use the same pack just fine on different computers. This would actually be handy for servers as well, come to think of it; select the mods your server uses and link people who want to join to the package on the Curse Client/Site.
I'm certainly very comfortable with shuffling files having done it since 1987, though not everyone is as proficient. I know my wife doesn't know how to drag-and-drop, and she has minimal knowledge of the command line, though she does run Linux and finds it more user-friendly than she's seen Windows perform. If she was on her own, it would be unlikely she would have the skills to install FTB manually. I know a lot of people in this position, and they're not just Windows users.
I'm glad to hear that reiterated, though it looks like my tech-support role won't be supplanted any time soon. I can live with that.
Just as an aside, I was reminded of something from a corporate handbook that went something like this: never turn down the chance for another customer to walk through the door. If you limit yourself to a certain type of customer, then you'll lose out on the chance that other customers will cause a significant upswing in your earnings. It may only be miniscule, but it is still greater than zero.
If a company as big as Valve are prepared to bet money on Linux—along with several thousand other companies both big and small, then why shouldn't Curse also put a little extra money into supporting that one extra customer in a hundred?
I first ran into Minecraft because I'd spent money on the Humble Bundle 3. One of the biggest selling points of the Humble Bundle was that their binaries ran on all three platforms. Looking at the contributions of users from the three platforms, Linux provided the most money on average for their portion of the sales, with OS X users coming in second, and Windows coming in at just over half the amount of money that Linux users contributed. This is not anecdotal, and I accept that Humble Bundle isn't a money maker for most companies, but the figures bear thinking about. Us few Linux users—at least in that instance—are willing to pay (on average) more for our programs than our many Windows counterparts. It's rare when the amount drops below $10. That fact has been mostly consistent over every Humble Bundle I have personally bought, and most of the bundles I have observed. And that's just one example.
Edit: I see the spread of results shows that I can no longer claim the rarity of Linux payments being less than $10, I apologise for my error.
(Post 6)
Last edited:
Besides any point this might make for one side or another of this argument, I just have to interject that I find this kind of statistic really cool. Why can't people bring more statistics like these? Not even the results in particular, just the fact that it exists. It'd be just as cool to know if Mac was the highest, or Windows
Now, on to seriousness.
At the moment, I use Linux mostly as a server OS, but I'm leaning more and more towards making it my primary OS (the amount of work that would take me is holding me back). I'd strongly argue for a Linux version, not just because I want to use Linux in the future, but because I don't see it as fair that because of a personal (and sometimes necessary) preference of some users to use a different OS, means they won't be able to play FTB packs as easily. This just appears to be blatant discrimination to me. Other people will almost certainly see it differently to me, and I respect that, but there's no point trying to argue this point, at least not with me.
Curse almost certainly has enough money to put on a coder or two to write a Linux version, they seem to be doing pretty well. And as people have pointed out, using a multi-platform library (or whatever it's called), while it would introduce a higher CPU use, wouldn't be outrageous and I doubt many users would notice. I think I saw someone mention 4% higher or something somewhere earlier. If your computer can't handle a 4% increase, I'm not really sure how it handled FTB modpacks in the first place.
I know that the mods will be available for manual download (and I assume the configs too), and that's better than nothing, but in reality, FTB managed a three-platform launcher on no pay for coders, how can Curse not?
Think about this: how would everyone on Windows feel if Curse was a Unix based company and they were only going to be making clients for Linux and Mac? Everyone on Windows would have to do what Linux users are likely going to have to do, manually download and construct the modpacks themselves. Now, looking at the reality, this isn't what's happening, but imagine how you'd feel if you had to do that every time you wanted a different modpack, then realise that some people are going to have to do that, and those people are going to feel exactly the same boredom and pain as you would.
My last reference to the reality of things is that Curse is a company, and they must make a profit. They will, I'm sure, try as hard as they can to please the community (especially considering the initial hugely negative response from said community), but the harsh truth is that companies, Curse or otherwise, cannot stay running if they do not make a profit. If they could manage to keep the company running at a loss to please the community, I like to imagine that they would. But, that's just impossible.
Then again, I also believe that hiring Linux-specialised coders or rewriting the client to use a multi-platform library wouldn't actually put them at a loss anyway. I have no evidence of that, all I can do is be proven either right, wrong or "no comment" by Kaelten.
They are doing well because they don't throw away money on unprofitable ventures.
Last edited:
My point was that they can continue making a profit, albeit a smaller one, even if they do hire a Linux coder or two.