Prey

[arcturus]

Seems a number of people are pretty pissed at 3DRealms for not having a singleplayer port for linux.

http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16629

I suspect the game developers are going to be hearing alot more from the linux camp as it grows in popularity and Prey might just be the opening salvo. There's valid points on both sides but all the discussion should be moot once linux hits critical mass.

[1c3d0g]

I vote with my wallet. Companies that don't support Linux won't get my cash, it's as simple as that. UT2k4 has a native Linux port, and that's why I gladly buy the full DVD version of that game. I do the same thing with iD Software's games (Doom 3, Quake 4 etc.). These companies somehow managed to make a Linux version of their excellent games, so why can't others? It's called laziness.

We as Linux users have a voice, and if we stand united towards a cause, nothing, and I do mean nothing, will get in our way. :-)

[James]

Prey really should have a Linux client since every other game based on the Doom 3 engine has had one.

[Shadewalker]

They started out with a very portable codebase (see Doom3, Quake4) and no doubt screwed it over completely, but as they're too ashamed to admit this fact, they cover themselves up with lies such as insufficient demand for a linux port.

[niniendowarrior]

I would normally be happy if companies release Linux clients... The 3D realms representative there (Joe Siegler) was at least kind enough to ask management if there is plan for one. I know Doom 3 and Quake 4 are portable codebase, but obviously the developers wanted only a Windows version, seeing that Linux doesn't have a big gamer base. I honestly think going to their forums, whinning and yapping about the lack of Linux support doesn't help anything, much less, irritate the company. They obviously don't want one, so camping out in the doorsteps only just makes matters worse.

And by the way, I didn't like the Prey demo.

[Shadewalker]

I know Doom 3 and Quake 4 are portable codebase, but obviously the developers wanted only a Windows version
I don't follow your reasoning here. How does wanting a window-only version make sense? You say the the codebase is portable, so there should only be profit in alternate OS port due to the next-to-none effort required. As I mentioned in my previous post, they must have done one thing another to make the code unportable but won't admit it.

[James]

All the paths must have been coded with back-slashes.

[niniendowarrior]

The way I see it, even though the codebases are portable to alternate OSes, the company needs to spend money, time, and resources to adjust the code and to make sure it's working on altenate OSes. And the way the company sees it, Linux gaming is a niche market that doesn't generate revenues to them. So, the cost of making sure a Linux port works is not compensated by the potential revenue that can be tapped from the Linux gaming community. Demand just isn't there.

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.

[arcturus]

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.

Actually it's the first recourse available to let a company know there's demand for their product, unless you have some better idea to suggest?

[Shadewalker]

The way I see it, even though the codebases are portable to alternate OSes, the company needs to spend money, time, and resources to adjust the code and to make sure it's working on altenate OSes. And the way the company sees it, Linux gaming is a niche market that doesn't generate revenues to them. So, the cost of making sure a Linux port works is not compensated by the potential revenue that can be tapped from the Linux gaming community. Demand just isn't there.

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.
Your statement is a self-contradictory. A codebase being portable means exactly the opposite of what you say, about company needing to spend "money, time and resources". Portable implies that no adjustments are needed. If they were, the code wouldn't be portable.

Please explain how there would be no revenues with all the interest and no additional expenses for the company. Let me point out once again that this makes absolutely no sense at all. Something is completely wrong, and if you read my first post in this thread, you know what I'm hinting at.

[niniendowarrior]

Nope. Even if the code was portable, the company still needs to expel resources to get the code ported. Every minute burned on trying to get a Linux port out is money used, I think companies won't necessarily do the math and risk the Linux market for a consumer base of '?'.

And posting requests on forums surely makes your voice heard, it doesn't make you representative of the "demand". That is done by a company's own case study.

If you disagree, then that's fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

[Shadewalker]

Nope. Even if the code was portable, the company still needs to expel resources to get the code ported. Every minute burned on trying to get a Linux port out is money used, I think companies won't necessarily do the math and risk the Linux market for a consumer base of '?'.

And posting requests on forums surely makes your voice heard, it doesn't make you representative of the "demand". That is done by a company's own case study.

If you disagree, then that's fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

Okay, so we have different definitions of the term "portable". I can't say I disagree entirely. No need to repeat myself again - I *know* why there will be no Prey linux client.

[Michael]

Dedicated News -- http://icculus.org/news/news.php?id=3351

[Licaon]

as usual Linux is a great working horse when it comes to the server part (more servers = more clients buying the game, right ?) but not on the client side. icculus said in an podcast interview that most of the game logic is actually the same on the server side as on the client side, not to mention that the Doom3 game engine already is portable, somehow most of the linux gamers thought that would mean a linux client would be a piece of cake.

seeing that Linux doesn't have a big gamer base. I honestly think going to their forums, whinning and yapping about the lack of Linux support doesn't help anything, much less, irritate the company. so maybe everybody with an opinion should just shut up, just because you dont think it's a good way?

how do you you think this matter should be treated ?

And the way the company sees it, Linux gaming is a niche market that doesn't generate revenues to them. So, the cost of making sure a Linux port works is not compensated by the potential revenue that can be tapped from the Linux gaming community. Demand just isn't there.this is actually the problem: "they dont make Linux games because there is no gamer base, there is no gamer base 'cause there are no games made for Linux. " do you see the vicious circle? iD, EPIC/ Bioware tried to break it, other companies too, just look at SeriousSam2, Savage2.


And posting requests on forums surely makes your voice heard, it doesn't make you representative of the "demand". That is done by a company's own case study.so where do companies research the gamer bases, if not on gamer forums/communities, if not on the internet?

[Shadewalker]

Dedicated News -- http://icculus.org/news/news.php?id=3351

I had no idea icculus was involved.

[Michael]

The Prey Linux Dedicated Server for version 1.1 is over @ Icculus' site (http://icculus.org/news/news.php?id=3392)

[Svartalf]

They started out with a very portable codebase (see Doom3, Quake4) and no doubt screwed it over completely, but as they're too ashamed to admit this fact, they cover themselves up with lies such as insufficient demand for a linux port.

I doubt it's lies, per se, or that they've broken the engine completely.
It's very probably more to do with total unfamiliarity with the OS-
realize that Ryan did the server port for 'em- this sort of thing really
isn't that hard unless you're afraid/unsure of the platform because it's
"different". (And, I know this to be the case because I do it all the
time, whether it's for games or other applications. What's funny is
that they hired this out to Ryan- and they could have had local talent
do it for them in-office for probably less than they paid him to do
it with a bribe to allow me to port it to Linux or get LGP a cheap
shot at it with me doing the work for 'em... Oh, well... :D )

Remember that most game developers are dealing with Windows or some
proprietary embedded thing that was inflicted upon them via the console
players- Linux is an utterly alien concept to many of them if they don't
use the OS themselves. Considering that two of the three next-gen
consoles use Linux at their hearts, perhaps this story will change some.
There'd be less of a reason/excuse at that point other than publishers
not wanting to muck with the Linux desktop space. Even that can be
dealt with over time.

[Svartalf]

Nope. Even if the code was portable, the company still needs to expel resources to get the code ported. Every minute burned on trying to get a Linux port out is money used, I think companies won't necessarily do the math and risk the Linux market for a consumer base of '?'.

And posting requests on forums surely makes your voice heard, it doesn't make you representative of the "demand". That is done by a company's own case study.

If you disagree, then that's fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

Heh... Depends on whether or not they publish it themselves or release
it themselves. What's funny (and I hope they see it that way too...) is
that there's a Linux developer, a consultant for LGP, all of about 3-4
miles from their offices that'd love to have had the shot at it all.