UT3 Linux Client Is "In The Works"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: UT3 Linux Client Is "In The Works"

It's been 234 days (or just shy of eight months) since Unreal Tournament 3 had shipped for the PC. Most would have thought the Linux client for this title from Epic Games would have arrived by now, but sadly it hasn't and there is no sign of when it will arrive. Recently, Epic's Jeff "WarTourist" Morris has stopped by the Phoronix Forums...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjU4Mw

[immudium]

Well, I've said it before. I'm more than happy to pay top dollar for closed source software and hardware both in terms of video cards and games in order to get the best experience and enjoyment possible. The PC version of UT3 is hovering at just under $30 online. If they had they're act together, they would have gotten more money out of me, but if it drops another $10 or $15 before they finally get it out, well, thanks for the forced discount :) <EDIT>Er, But I would like to add that I'm thrilled that there's word that they're at least still working on it. Better late than never!</EDIT>

[SlickMcRunfast]

I would pay full release price if they just put the Linux client in the box and Tux on the box.

[Kevin]

I just hope they are not saying it's in development just because they are tired of hearing Linux users complain. I hope it really is coming.

The Windows version has nearly no one playing at all and now they rarely release patches or new maps. The game is pretty much dead.

Had they released the Linux client at the same time as the Windows version came out then there would have been a chance for this game to actually do well in sales.

[deanjo]

I don't understand how "In the works" is any different from "We are currently working on a linux UT3 client". WarTourist's comments gave absolutely nothing new. Had he said it's X% done and gave a rough estimate as to when we would be able to actually see something then that would be an update.

[jeffro-tull]

So, it's "in the works" but "don't expect it soon".

When it finally does see the light of day, will anyone care any more?

[quintesse]

For me it's the last time I will trust them to make good on their promise of a Linux client before one actually exists. I bought the Windows version in the understanding that a Linux client wasn't far off but now so much time later it just isn't worth it anymore. Even if a Linux client came out tomorrow the thrill of trying out a new game is gone. The fact that some are saying the game is dead on Windows as well only adds to the disappointment.

[yoshi314]

So, it's "in the works" but "don't expect it soon".yeah. keep in mind that phoronix announced ~5 times that amd's tcore utility release was 'imminent' ;-)

applying that scale to 'in the works' i'd say we have to wait 2-3 years for linux ut3 :]

[xav1r]

It'll be released shortly after DNF 2 from 3DR is released. :)

[Svartalf]

Phoronix: UT3 Linux Client Is "In The Works"[/URL]

TuxGames has an "unconfirmed" date of the first week of next month. Perhaps it will show soon. I'm just not quite as keen for it now as I was back around Christmas time last year.

[Svartalf]

yeah. keep in mind that phoronix announced ~5 times that amd's tcore utility release was 'imminent' ;-)


That was based on what John Bridgman was telling him- and I suspect that John honestly believed that. All it takes is one tidbit detail being off to impair your ability to defend yourself in a lawsuit or to prosecute infringers on your copyrights and patents. I have a niggling suspicion that they kept finding off pieces here and there and between that and trying to get their normal work done with the fglrx driver for workstations, the timeline for that kept slipping and slipping.

[Svartalf]

For me it's the last time I will trust them to make good on their promise of a Linux client before one actually exists. I bought the Windows version in the understanding that a Linux client wasn't far off but now so much time later it just isn't worth it anymore. Even if a Linux client came out tomorrow the thrill of trying out a new game is gone. The fact that some are saying the game is dead on Windows as well only adds to the disappointment.

First rule of thumb: If there is NOT a Linux client already available for you, either ON the disk or available for download, you are buying a WINDOWS title, not a Linux title. If you don't run Windows, why did you buy it, knowing there wasn't a client? On a promise? I hope they do release something- if not, I hope you learned your lesson on this. Sorry it had to be learned the hard way.

[xav1r]

Good point, i think the linux client for ut2k4 was there on the DVD when it came out. That said, I think it was Mark Rein that said that no linux client would be on the ut3 DVD when it was going to be released, but it would be later available.

[SlickMcRunfast]

Was the client on the UT2K3 CDs?

[Svartalf]

Was the client on the UT2K3 CDs?

Yes. It's why I'd bought it, 2k4, and had high hopes for UT3. I actually LIKED the game, they did "support" us, even if unofficially, and they provided a Linux installer. [edit] Keep in mind, that's UT2k3 that I'm talking about. UT3 isn't getting bought by me unless there's a Linux version here soon.

[joshuapurcell]

To me, it's a decision between supporting a company who is taking the time to release a popular Linux game, or penalizing a company who failed to deliver that product in a reasonable amount of time. UT3 has been out on other platforms for a long time now and anyone who was crazy about this game would have already picked it up there. I imagine that many of us who are mainly interested in Linux gaming (but not necessarily this particular title) have already lost interest and moved on to more recent titles that have come out on our platform.

I do hope the developers and more importantly their managers don't put to much weight on the Linux sales numbers for UT3 when deciding whether or not to release future titles on this platform, because they will be off by a wide margin if there are others who look at this situation like I do: too little too late.

[etymxris]

Well, I got the game for Windows recently with a dual boot I set up because I was tired of using wine for TF2.

There is hardly anyone playing the game anymore online. For each mode, there was just a handful of servers that had any players on them. It seems pretty decent now in play terms, but I guess it was buggy when first released, and that turned a lot of people away. There seems to be as many people playing ut2004 now as there are playing unreal 3. I don't really feel it was worth the $30 I paid given the lack of online community.

So I'd say forget about the client. Maybe the next release will go smoother and keep the players for longer.

[Sir_Brizz]

Unfortunately, your attitude is precisely why there are not many people playing. "Oh, there are not a lot of people online, I'll play something else." Get 200 people saying that and of course the game looks dead :p

I'm looking forward to the Linux client and still believe they will deliver it. This isn't as simple as saying "UT200X had it, so why can't UT3?" UT3 contains a lot more middleware than UT2004 did, so it's quite obvious that legal problems will arise.

And, yes, this is a reason why using too much middleware is bad.

[me262]

And, yes, this is a reason why using too much middleware is bad.
It's all just outsourcing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outsource) in my book...

If UT3 truly is dying in the Windows market, there won't be much of a Linux community left to sell to. It looked good to me in February (which is why I double-checked to confirm there was a Linux client), but now, because of the crap they've given us, and my eventual boredom with a product, I'm probably not getting it anymore (let alone any more Epic or Epic-licensed products). Better (read, Blizzard) games like Starcraft II and Diablo III are peaking my interest now.

[Przeciwko]

First rule of thumb: If there is NOT a Linux client already available for you, either ON the disk or available for download, you are buying a WINDOWS title, not a Linux title. If you don't run Windows, why did you buy it, knowing there wasn't a client? On a promise? I hope they do release something- if not, I hope you learned your lesson on this. Sorry it had to be learned the hard way.

By buying Windows version when Linux client is in work he supports Epic and in same time - work on Linux client.

[xav1r]

By buying Windows version when Linux client is in work he supports Epic and in same time - work on Linux client.

No, by buying the windows version youre saying with your money that you dont need the linux client. The only way to vote is with your wallet. All linux players should not buy ut3 until they can play it on linux as soon as they purchase it. Now that they have your money, they (epic) just dont care.

[RobbieAB]

Well, it depends how the announcement of a Linux client was worded. If it was that "a Linux client would be released soon", you might have a case for false advertising, at least in the UK/IE. Realistically though, I can't see them caring. Not enough people will go after them for it to matter.

[Sir_Brizz]

Better (read, Blizzard) games like Starcraft II and Diablo III are peaking my interest now.
You mean companies that don't and never will support Linux. Isn't that the same thing as supporting Windows?

[Przeciwko]

No, by buying the windows version youre saying with your money that you dont need the linux client. The only way to vote is with your wallet. All linux players should not buy ut3 until they can play it on linux as soon as they purchase it. Now that they have your money, they (epic) just dont care.

Yeah you are so riiiight. WarTourist messages on Phoronix shows how they don't care, this news to...
Man, think again before you post such bull****. It's like FUD by Microsoft.

[xav1r]

Yeah you are so riiiight. WarTourist messages on Phoronix shows how they don't care, this news to...
Man, think again before you post such bull****. It's like FUD by Microsoft.

well, wartourists words havent provided anything new, just fuel to the flames of skeptibility. Until the linux client is available for download everywhere the reality of my statements hasnt changed yet.

[me262]

You mean companies that don't and never will support Linux. Isn't that the same thing as supporting Windows?
Not when I run them under Wine / Cedega...
Unfortunately it seems right now to be essential until people start developing for linux. There are a few rare games that I do this with. Any game made by Blizzard (because my friends are Blizzard fanatics), and Guild Wars (because most of my friends had it too). Other than that, I have native clients for everything else. Too bad about NWN2, never picked that up.

[me262]

Well, it depends how the announcement of a Linux client was worded. If it was that "a Linux client would be released soon", you might have a case for false advertising, at least in the UK/IE. Realistically though, I can't see them caring. Not enough people will go after them for it to matter.
How about "a linux client will be released on the game disc"?

[RobbieAB]

How about "a linux client will be released on the game disc"?
If you can produce advertising material that states that, than it is an open and closed case under Irish law, which states in summary "Goods must be as advertised".

[Thetargos]

How about "a linux client will be released on the game disc"?

As it used to be the case for UT2004, I was thrilled to see that little penguin on the box when I first got it!

link (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/thetargos/UnrealTouranmant/utk2-box_back-res.jpg) to full back box picture.

Tux detail + highlight

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/thetargos/UnrealTouranmant/tux-detail.jpg

Oh, and I got the Special DVD Edition with the metal box and all [1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/thetargos/UnrealTouranmant/ut2k4-metalbox-resize.jpg)][2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/thetargos/UnrealTouranmant/ut2k4-metal_box2-res.jpg)], I wanted to get the Special Edition of Unreal Tournament III, alas, no Linux client in the disks meant me not buying it.

[joshuapurcell]

You mean companies that don't and never will support Linux. Isn't that the same thing as supporting Windows?Liking Linux and being a gamer are sometimes mutually exclusive. You could argue that we at least know what to expect from Blizzard on the Linux gaming front. It would be great to have a established and well-liked game developer like Blizzard jump in to Linux gaming, but there are some of who aren't going to wait around for that to happen to play quality games (we'll just gripe about not being able to do so on our chosen OS).

[niniendowarrior]

Yeah you are so riiiight. WarTourist messages on Phoronix shows how they don't care, this news to...
Man, think again before you post such bull****. It's like FUD by Microsoft.

I don't take a stance on the UT3 Linux debacle. Wartourist posted here nothing new except that "it's still in the works". You can take that info for what it's worth and do whatever it is you want. But you better clean up your language. xav1r posted a pretty hard truth in the Linux game landscape, and if you don't agree, there are better ways to respond than to stoop to that kind of stupid language.

[me262]

If you can produce advertising material that states that, than it is an open and closed case under Irish law, which states in summary "Goods must be as advertised".
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Unreal_Tournament_3_box_includes_Linux_client
(Article link dead)
However I found this article from the same site: http://www.linuxgames.com/archives/9593

Nothing solid however.
Just goes to show that you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch.

[xav1r]

From that link I understood that a previous unreal editor was ported entirely to linux. Is that true? And if so, which editor? the one for ut2k4?

[xav1r]

I don't take a stance on the UT3 Linux debacle. Wartourist posted here nothing new except that "it's still in the works". You can take that info for what it's worth and do whatever it is you want. But you better clean up your language. xav1r posted a pretty hard truth in the Linux game landscape, and if you don't agree, there are better ways to respond than to stoop to that kind of stupid language.

Thanks man, for your support.:)

[quintesse]

First rule of thumb: If there is NOT a Linux client already available for you, either ON the disk or available for download, you are buying a WINDOWS title, not a Linux title. If you don't run Windows, why did you buy it, knowing there wasn't a client? On a promise? I hope they do release something- if not, I hope you learned your lesson on this. Sorry it had to be learned the hard way.

No need to get dramatic ;)

I do actually run Windows, I just prefer not to. So I could actually play it, getting the feel for it, while waiting for the Linux version. Better that way too because otherwise I would have had to jump into games with much more experienced players that had already months of training.

The fact that a Linux client is or isn't on the disc doesn't change much because they can't know on which system you are going to use it anyway.

In the end it was just "faith" that made me buy the game. They had always made good on their promise before, releasing Linux clients for their games (while they where still very much alive). So I wanted to show support for a company that had not let me down before. Only goes to show that you shouldn't be too trusting ;)

Very likely I will still buy their games in the future if they come with a Linux client, but now I will definitely wait until the client is actually available!

[Svartalf]

I don't take a stance on the UT3 Linux debacle. Wartourist posted here nothing new except that "it's still in the works". You can take that info for what it's worth and do whatever it is you want. But you better clean up your language. xav1r posted a pretty hard truth in the Linux game landscape, and if you don't agree, there are better ways to respond than to stoop to that kind of stupid language.

Indeed. While I have my own opinions, I'm keeping them MOSTLY to myself- mainly because of another hard real fact...

xav1r did indeed post a hard, painful truth when he stated that if there is no Linux client, all you're doing is buying a Windows title- everyone reading this, repeat that over and over and over again until it sinks in. WINE does NOT make it a Linux title. Cedega does NOT make it a Linux title. Crossover Games does NOT make it a Linux title. When you use Windows titles in this manner, all you are telling them is that you are perfectly FINE with a Windows version being ran on a sub-optimal solution.

The other hard real fact is that every action you do can end up closing doors on possible versions of things for Linux in the future.

When you mouth off like about "*!%#@# FUD", folks, you send the message that we're all obnoxious, ungrateful wretches, not worth going to the trouble to make an official version. Now, admittedly, they're inexcusably late to the game with this title- seven months isn't "we're working on it because it wasn't done", especially with whom they have to help them do the work (The same gent that helped them do the engine port work for Unreal Engine 2...), so you should be very, very upset all the same. I suggest using a bit more guarded language when discussing your displeasure.

If they did this to the Windows or MacOS community, they'd be out of business real quick. The only reason they're "getting away with it" is because we're not as focused and there's fewer "gamers" of the like that'd play UT3 on Linux right now than the other platforms (Even though there's a larger potential market in the Linux space...).

[Svartalf]

No need to get dramatic ;)

Actually there is a reason... Most people keep perpetuating the problem of voting Windows instead of voting their preferred platform. Your purchase without them having provided a client is one instance of that sort of thing, unfortunately.


I do actually run Windows, I just prefer not to. So I could actually play it, getting the feel for it, while waiting for the Linux version. Better that way too because otherwise I would have had to jump into games with much more experienced players that had already months of training.


You know, you might want to ask yourself if you want to keep running under Windows if you don't prefer to do so. Each time you buy a Windows title, you're just prolonging the network effect that keeps things like UT3 from being on Linux out of the gate. Honest.


The fact that a Linux client is or isn't on the disc doesn't change much because they can't know on which system you are going to use it anyway.


Heh... Wrong thinking. What do you think gets handshaked with the server plants when you go online? If you never play the mulitplayer, sure, they're not going to know. And it's not that it has to be IN the box (that'd be nice)- it's that they HAVE to have a Linux client for it to be useful to most people in the Linux space.


In the end it was just "faith" that made me buy the game. They had always made good on their promise before, releasing Linux clients for their games (while they where still very much alive). So I wanted to show support for a company that had not let me down before. Only goes to show that you shouldn't be too trusting ;)


Which is what I was trying to convey. No Linux client, no sale. It doesn't matter if it's on the CD/DVD (Though that helps immensely)- but there does have to be a client.


Very likely I will still buy their games in the future if they come with a Linux client, but now I will definitely wait until the client is actually available!

There you go.

[quintesse]

You know, you might want to ask yourself if you want to keep running under Windows if you don't prefer to do so. Each time you buy a Windows title, you're just prolonging the network effect that keeps things like UT3 from being on Linux out of the gate. Honest.

I think that not playing games I like while waiting forever for them to maybe some day appear on Linux just isn't a very fun way to spend my time. And I don't care enough to be all principal about it.

But let's talk about being honest: the current Linux market just isn't big enough to warrant any investment in a Linux client. The few that do actually make them admit they basically do it out of the kindness of their heart (which doesn't mean they give the game away for free of course! But they assume that the amount of extra games they sell will hardly even pay for the extra work they had to do). First Linux desktop usage has to go up a couple of percentage points until it becomes really interesting for them. And it doesn't even have to be much, just look at Apple, lately there has been more and more interest from gaming companies to make an Apple version of their games.

[xav1r]

I just thought about this. Gears of War 2 is coming for the x360 platform, and it will be AFAIK, the first game to use the incremental upgrade to the unreal engine 3, UE 3.5. Can you guess where im getting at? I dont think Epic will leave its prime title, Unreal Tournament, without the UE 3.5 treatment. I doubt it. So there will be some sort of similar situation as in ut2k3 -> ut2k4 with a new UT3.5 or something like that. When that goes down, no one, and i mean no one, buy that as soon as it ships if it doesnt have a linux penguin logo in the back of the box. That might just send a strong enough message. :D

[deanjo]

. That might just send a strong enough message. :D

I'd doubt it, even if every linux user was a gamer, with linux barely achieving 1% of the desktop market the loss in any potential revenue is negligible.

[Licaon]

/offtopic:
@Svartalf: maybe you should rethink that anti-buying-a-Windows-version thing that you keep repeating, since you're not offering a viable alternative saying that something is bad is useless, you are not answering the question that follows: "OK, i won't buy the Windows version, where from do I buy the Linux version?"

maybe it makes you feel good to show everybody the truth, that buying means accepting, but that good feeling that you have does not replace the games that we all missed playing in Linux or in the ( wonderful but ) broken WINE :(

and repeating that does not make it any better, actually it makes me mad/sad :(

/ontopic: 9 months already? the time is up, time to give birth to the Linux version guys/gals :D

[ivanovic]

@Svartalf: maybe you should rethink that anti-buying-a-Windows-version thing that you keep repeating, since you're not offering a viable alternative saying that something is bad is useless, you are not answering the question that follows: "OK, i won't buy the Windows version, where from do I buy the Linux version?"

That is simple:

Do not buy it (and thus play it) unless there *is* a Linux version. Once the Linux version is available, either via pointrelease or "real port" by a different company, buy the game. Best would then even be to buy it in a "linux shop". There are several of those out there, eg ixsoft.de or tuxgames.com.

maybe it makes you feel good to show everybody the truth, that buying means accepting, but that good feeling that you have does not replace the games that we all missed playing in Linux or in the ( wonderful but ) broken WINE

It is basically every players own choice. Either wait until a linux binary is out (yes, it might be "forever") or buy a Windows title which is only available for Windows and support this market.


Let's make it a simple calculation from the publishers point of view:

If you saw that you have many sales of your product, why do create a Linux port? Why do this while there are many Linux users buying it to play it via wine? Why invest the money needed for the port? Yes, if those were not buying at all, this might be a starving market where I could gain a lot of profit with little effort, but why should I do so when 70% of the users buy my Windows version, too, without me putting a single dollar in it?

The harsh truth is that wine actually is hurting the Linux market for many native products though the software itself makes lots of sense. So if you wanted to explicitly support Linux gaming, you would just buy and play those having a native Linux version. (For example you could try to open source shooter or, to have something different, a turnbased strategy game in a fantasy theme, more commonly known as "Battle for Wesnoth" [/shameless advertisement]).

[niniendowarrior]

@Svartalf: maybe you should rethink that anti-buying-a-Windows-version thing that you keep repeating, since you're not offering a viable alternative saying that something is bad is useless, you are not answering the question that follows: "OK, i won't buy the Windows version, where from do I buy the Linux version?"

maybe it makes you feel good to show everybody the truth, that buying means accepting, but that good feeling that you have does not replace the games that we all missed playing in Linux or in the ( wonderful but ) broken WINE :(

and repeating that does not make it any better, actually it makes me mad/sad :(


Svartalf doesn't offer a better solution, other than keeping your dollars in your wallet, but, in my opinion, this simple truth does not seem to sink into a lot of folks. No matter how much that makes you feel sad, it doesn't change that fact and that there's still a contingency of Linux gamers that go the WINE/Cedega route for whatever reason. I can't speak for him, but those many reiterations, in my opinion, are necessary. It's the kind of repercussion that Linux gamers do not realize. And everyday, you find new folks talking about how they play using Wine, etc.

The buying of those Windows copies, in the long run don't help. They hurt much more in a grander scheme of things.

Knowing the root cause of the problem is the first step of finding the real solution.

[deanjo]

Until I see a game that says that advertises "Runs under Wine or Cedega" on the box I can't consider either solutions being a factor in a companies decision to port to linux or not.

[Svartalf]

Until I see a game that says that advertises "Runs under Wine or Cedega" on the box I can't consider either solutions being a factor in a companies decision to port to linux or not.

Heh... Unfortunately many do. :D

[Malikith]

Svartalf doesn't offer a better solution, other than keeping your dollars in your wallet, but, in my opinion, this simple truth does not seem to sink into a lot of folks. No matter how much that makes you feel sad, it doesn't change that fact and that there's still a contingency of Linux gamers that go the WINE/Cedega route for whatever reason. I can't speak for him, but those many reiterations, in my opinion, are necessary. It's the kind of repercussion that Linux gamers do not realize. And everyday, you find new folks talking about how they play using Wine, etc.

The buying of those Windows copies, in the long run don't help. They hurt much more in a grander scheme of things.

Knowing the root cause of the problem is the first step of finding the real solution.

Yeah, this is a major problem. What puzzles me further is that some people use wine to play games such as Quake 3 or UT 2004 or some other game that has a native port already. It seems they are completely unaware that there are native solutions to some of the games they actually already play. I honestly don't care if people want to play Windows games, its just that if you want to play Windows games, just use Windows. I don't understand why people grab Linux and then install about 30 games through Wine and not even have a single native game on their machine. That just seems like a waste of time.

[Thetargos]

From that link I understood that a previous unreal editor was ported entirely to linux. Is that true? And if so, which editor? the one for ut2k4?

Dunno if you have had an answer on this, but now that you mention it... Might that be the cause of the delay (wishful thinking), we broke our heads about the client, but no one thought about the Editor. So it happens that UT3 is suypposed to be the first Unreal to have available for Linux the whole set of modding tools (map editor, models, static meshes, physics, UnrealScript, etc). Supposedly (as per Ryan saying) the tools had been ported for the most part, and that was thanks to the Epic devs using WxWidgets rather than GDI to code the UI (IIRC), at any rate the tools only go so far as the engine itself as they hook to it, and use it as backend. At any rate, UT3's editor would be the one ported. Not (as far as I know) UE2.0 editor.

[Chris]

Do not buy it (and thus play it) unless there *is* a Linux version. Once the Linux version is available, either via pointrelease or "real port" by a different company, buy the game.
But if Linux users don't buy it, won't we just be telling them that Linux users won't buy their stuff? Then why bother porting to an OS for users that won't buy it? After all, just *saying* we'll buy it if there's a Linux version doesn't mean anything. We have to *show* them that we'll buy it.. but we can't do that if we don't.

And if they do see a drop-off in sales, will it be attributed to "those Linux users" or "the decline of PC gaming"? I'd wager that if studios see a significant decline in PC game sales, they'll just focus more on consoles, not alternative OSs.

[niniendowarrior]

You can argue about that, but buying Windows copies still won't help.

Think of it as buying a Windows copy sets back Linux gaming by ten years. lol.

On a side note, we should make an effort to get back on topic, though my stance on UT3 on Linux is still 'indifferent'. I'll be happy when I see it out. Let's see if Epic makes good with their promise.

[deanjo]

Heh... Unfortunately many do. :D


Such as? Give some examples.

[Svartalf]

Such as? Give some examples.

Not companies, deanjo- people consider it a viable means to try to produce Linux titles and support. I honestly wish they would slap "Runs with WINE" on their box or similar- you could then use WINE figures as potential sales figures for Linux, because it would count as official support.

Most people don't realize that, while their thinking is reasoned and quite probably right in an ideal world, the world around them is far removed from the ideal. Each person considering WINE or Cedega an answer for anything doesn't get that each title you run under there, if it's still a going concern, is a vote for more Windows titles, not a metric for indicating there is a demand for Linux versions of the titles. Moreover, winelib's not much more of an answer than WINE/Cedega is right at the moment.

We could have 50% of the desktop market and still not have any Linux titles with the way people think these days about these things- because they would keep artificially inflating the Windows sales figures.

[Svartalf]

But if Linux users don't buy it, won't we just be telling them that Linux users won't buy their stuff? Then why bother porting to an OS for users that won't buy it? After all, just *saying* we'll buy it if there's a Linux version doesn't mean anything. We have to *show* them that we'll buy it.. but we can't do that if we don't.


Heh... The problem is...how do you distinguish Windows use versus Linux use? WINE? Well, if it runs "okay" in that WINE thingy, why should we be making a Linux version of anything, hm?

It's a chicken and the egg problem you've got there- and buying Windows titles WILL NOT HELP YOU. When you buy for Windows, you bought that specific product. It adds a sales point for them to consider making more Windows titles. It's the easy payoff compared to putting another 10-15% work into the title just to get somewhere between 4-10% more sales... If you can get everyone to "run" one binary set, you're in like Flynn- if you can't, there better be a good enough reason to do the work if you're going for more than something like Windows.

The main reason you see Id and, until recently, Epic titles is that they were interested in selling engine code to other studios- code that needed to be massively cross-platform so it could target Windows, MacOS, and console targets with equal ease. So, doing a Linux version is relatively easy and keeps it honest and much cleaner than not doing one. Many of the titles out there are from studios that don't have the resources of Id or Epic, and either can't afford the engine or think they can do a better job for the title they're gunning for. For them, making cross platform is an even more tenuous call. The only way you're going to see Linux versions from them unless they honestly see a market from us is if they've got fans or the clueful at the management level- otherwise, you're not going to see them doing anything for us.

Each purchase of a Windows title means one more data point for that platform. It's a self perpetuating effect- similar to the network effect from Fax machines. A single fax machine is intrinsically useless. Two become useful. Thousands become valuable. Each purchase of a Windows title is roughly analogous to that.


And if they do see a drop-off in sales, will it be attributed to "those Linux users" or "the decline of PC gaming"? I'd wager that if studios see a significant decline in PC game sales, they'll just focus more on consoles, not alternative OSs.

You'd be right in that concern. But buying Windows titles will not help you prevent that- it will only perpetuate Windows titles being done. And, considering that consoles have now taken up most of the framework (PS3 and Wii both have OpenGL ES as a rendering API, etc...) it's going to start becoming an easier sell to come back the other way. Keep in mind, though, there's a compelling story to doing nothing but consoles. Those consoles represent a form of DRM that's somewhat difficult to break in a manner like the DRM on Windows machines. How do you counter that draw?

[deanjo]

Not companies, deanjo- people consider it a viable means to try to produce Linux titles and support. I honestly wish they would slap "Runs with WINE" on their box or similar- you could then use WINE figures as potential sales figures for Linux, because it would count as official support.

Most people don't realize that, while their thinking is reasoned and quite probably right in an ideal world, the world around them is far removed from the ideal. Each person considering WINE or Cedega an answer for anything doesn't get that each title you run under there, if it's still a going concern, is a vote for more Windows titles, not a metric for indicating there is a demand for Linux versions of the titles. Moreover, winelib's not much more of an answer than WINE/Cedega is right at the moment.

We could have 50% of the desktop market and still not have any Linux titles with the way people think these days about these things- because they would keep artificially inflating the Windows sales figures.

I'm sorry Svartalf, but I don't buy that. Take a look at what has happened to the OS X side when the intels debuted. Sure you can run windows on them as well, but despite that more games are being brought over to OS X, some native and some using cider. There are more games now available for a Mac to run in OSX then there ever has been. Despite the ability of the mac to play games native in windows the industry does see the market value of bringing out a OS X version. Had the "a purchase of a windows game" truely counted against the decision to bring out another supported OS, they would never bring out the OS X titles.

[RobbieAB]

I'm sorry Svartalf, but I don't buy that. Take a look at what has happened to the OS X side when the intels debuted. Sure you can run windows on them as well, but despite that more games are being brought over to OS X, some native and some using cider. There are more games now available for a Mac to run in OSX then there ever has been. Despite the ability of the mac to play games native in windows the industry does see the market value of bringing out a OS X version. Had the "a purchase of a windows game" truely counted against the decision to bring out another supported OS, they would never bring out the OS X titles.

MacOS has always had commercial, closed source programs running on it. What major Linux apps are commercial, closed source programs?

[Chris]

Heh... The problem is...how do you distinguish Windows use versus Linux use? WINE? Well, if it runs "okay" in that WINE thingy, why should we be making a Linux version of anything, hm?
I'd hope studios could tell the difference between barely-content users and happy customers. With Wine, sure some things *may* work. But they could break just as easilly. And there's no telling that the next title you make will work just as good. In fact, personal experience shows that new games almost never run in Wine, let alone run as good as intended on official platform targets. It takes months or years to get it acceptabley stable, and things still can break on occasion.

With proper native ports, you'd be gauranteeing that the user base won't have to rely on external software like that, leaving the creators more in control over how the end product is perceived. Why leave disgruntled consumers with your games that barely work through 3rd party software, when you can do something about it to make sure those users come back for your next game(s)? Why risk losing that revenue?

Maybe buying a Windows game to run through Wine does count as a "point" for Windows. But when run through Wine, they are not running in Windows. So the more that studios ignore the fact that a number of their user base are running on non-Windows OSs, the more they'll lose out when those users get fed up and stop buying. It would seem to me that studios should take their users running it in Wine as not only a potential market, but also a user base to keep. How much more loyalty do they want than we show with what we have to put up with? :P

[Svartalf]

I'm sorry Svartalf, but I don't buy that. Take a look at what has happened to the OS X side when the intels debuted. Sure you can run windows on them as well, but despite that more games are being brought over to OS X, some native and some using cider. There are more games now available for a Mac to run in OSX then there ever has been. Despite the ability of the mac to play games native in windows the industry does see the market value of bringing out a OS X version. Had the "a purchase of a windows game" truely counted against the decision to bring out another supported OS, they would never bring out the OS X titles.

That, my friend is because they HAVE sales figures to go WITH that move. You see, they had games and quite a bit of them compared to Linux that people actually went out and bought, even though it cost more than the Windows versions at the time. Now, being PPC during most of that time helped enforce the concept that if you used MacOS you weren't the other studio's customer- but in the end, the studios don't care about that little tidbit detail.

If you don't trace the entire history from start to finish, you will miss out on little bit details like that- and while they might seem trivial, they're dead critical actually.

[Svartalf]

I'd hope studios could tell the difference between barely-content users and happy customers. With Wine, sure some things *may* work. But they could break just as easilly. And there's no telling that the next title you make will work just as good. In fact, personal experience shows that new games almost never run in Wine, let alone run as good as intended on official platform targets. It takes months or years to get it acceptabley stable, and things still can break on occasion.


If you're not running on Windows, you are NOT their customer unless you're running under another OS that they DO support.

This one specific detail is where your line of reasoning keeps breaking down. You're laboring under the misapprehension that you are their customer. Unless it shows your configuration you're attempting to run it under (WINE doesn't count for Windows...) you can't turn around and say it doesn't meet the stated purpose on the box- no support, no returns (honestly), and so forth. The most you could ever hope for is to sweet-talk the retail store that sold you the package to refund your money if you can't get it to work.

[Svartalf]

MacOS has always had commercial, closed source programs running on it. What major Linux apps are commercial, closed source programs?

In the games space...Loki, Runesoft, and LGP are the only players. Loki imploded, screwing a LOT of people at studios and publishers in the process. Loki ended up imploding because it took on too many titles too fast and followed THAT bad decision up with a bevy of other very, very stupid moves on their part. That left a vacuum which the current players are now trying to fill- and left it REALLY difficult to get any titles.

Lump-sum, of the commercial, officially supported Linux titles that were or are currently supported: 20 some odd.

MacOS: Something on the order of 300-400, all of which saw decent sales (what was expected of LGP's sales, something on the order of 3k or so units sold overall..).


And, this doesn't even get into the commercial apps space for end-users. Pretty much all the commercial items are either the games we see nowadays and server stuff on the Linux side- we've had to roll pretty much all the rest of that space on our own or via open-sourcing gifts from Novell, Sun, or IBM.

[xav1r]

Dunno if you have had an answer on this, but now that you mention it... Might that be the cause of the delay (wishful thinking), we broke our heads about the client, but no one thought about the Editor. So it happens that UT3 is suypposed to be the first Unreal to have available for Linux the whole set of modding tools (map editor, models, static meshes, physics, UnrealScript, etc). Supposedly (as per Ryan saying) the tools had been ported for the most part, and that was thanks to the Epic devs using WxWidgets rather than GDI to code the UI (IIRC), at any rate the tools only go so far as the engine itself as they hook to it, and use it as backend. At any rate, UT3's editor would be the one ported. Not (as far as I know) UE2.0 editor.

I hope thats the case too, but somehow i doubt it. And no, i didnt get an answer to my question. Come to think of it, i dont know if there was a game modding toolset available natively for linux at all.

[Chris]

If you're not running on Windows, you are NOT their customer unless you're running under another OS that they DO support.
If I am paying them money for a game, I am their customer. Even if I don't get support for my OS, they are getting my money, and I am getting their product. If I stop buying their games, they lose out on my money all the same.

After all, money is what it's all about, right? And if a number of your users are buying and playing in Wine, wouldn't it be to your own benefit to make sure those same users can continue to buy and play your games, instead of letting them get fed up and stop buying?

[xav1r]

Which raises an interesting point. If money is what this boils down to, why for example in the case of online fee based games like mmos wouldnt the companies be interested in having multiplatform clients of their games? Wouldnt that mean more revenue to them, since really their "game" is nothing but a client that fetches them money. In the case of ad supported games too. For example, does anyone know if the upcoming quakelive will run on browsers running in linux?

[Svartalf]

After all, money is what it's all about, right? And if a number of your users are buying and playing in Wine, wouldn't it be to your own benefit to make sure those same users can continue to buy and play your games, instead of letting them get fed up and stop buying?

At what threshold is that loss painful enough for them to CARE about that?

I'm guessing it's 10%. You don't see 10% of their base not taking because they can't run it in WINE or Linux, do you?

Also worth noting: You bought that from a retailer- who bought it from the studio and publisher; if you didn't buy it direct from them, you are still NOT their customer and even if you did, unless you're running on the platforms they support, you're still largely not viewed as a customer. Trust me. You're trying to map "sensible" on to this. This world, the games industry, is more like the other media industries- it's like the record business. Do you think it's a bright idea to sue your customers? Well the RIAA labels do- because they don't think those people ARE their customers. Same goes for this story we're debating.

[Svartalf]

Which raises an interesting point. If money is what this boils down to, why for example in the case of online fee based games like mmos wouldnt the companies be interested in having multiplatform clients of their games? Wouldnt that mean more revenue to them, since really their "game" is nothing but a client that fetches them money. In the case of ad supported games too. For example, does anyone know if the upcoming quakelive will run on browsers running in linux?

Heh... Blizzard kind of had that thinking- but the publisher nixed the deal on WoW. As for Quakelive, it depends on how they're deploying the engine, etc. The codebase should, because it's a Q3:A derivative, be available for Linux if they so chose. If it only costs them 1-10% more effort to do it, I think you'll start seeing more and more MMOG's doing that sort of thing- where it makes more sense to make sure it's cross-platform and then make a Linux version available.

[xav1r]

Yea, i mean, for mostly offline games, really the relationship customer/company is on and off after the customer shells out the money. After that, its mostly ocassional tech support or patches. Online games, otoh, it's an ongoing business relationship, where support is ongoing, and so is the pay, so the more platforms are supported, the more money theyre gonna fetch potentially. Hmm, this gives me an idea, what if LGP looks to port with a MMO company, something good, like maybe that new funcom MMO, not something trite and crappy like WoW. :D

[niniendowarrior]

If I am paying them money for a game, I am their customer. Even if I don't get support for my OS, they are getting my money, and I am getting their product. If I stop buying their games, they lose out on my money all the same.

After all, money is what it's all about, right? And if a number of your users are buying and playing in Wine, wouldn't it be to your own benefit to make sure those same users can continue to buy and play your games, instead of letting them get fed up and stop buying?

The problem with your line of thought is that publishers don't see it that way. You bought their product and it's a Windows tally. You use it as a frisbee and let your dog fetch it or use Wine is your business. They wouldn't care if you attempt to eat it yourself.

One Windows game sale = More Windows games
One Windows game running under Wine = One Windows game sale

And the remarks on making sure the Wine users can continue to play their games is laughable. There is no Linux, nor Wine in the table for them. How can they see how many Wine buyers they have, when all of the numbers that go back are Windows sale?

[xav1r]

I think there has to be some sort of unified platform, kinda like steam or impulse, for many games being releaed on linux. Without that, theres gonna be whats available now: a few linux titles here and there, depending on the generosity of the developer. Does anyone here play Dominions 3 on linux? Thats what i mean. Maybe something like a "games for linux" thing with a digital delivery system in a .deb or .rpm file.

[Kano]

@niniendowarrior

Do you really think it is impossible to detect wine? Many online games report system stats and of course they could easyly add a wine detection. You can sell the game for Win, but then you could check how many play it with a different OS.

[Chris]

I think there has to be some sort of unified platform, kinda like steam or impulse, for many games being releaed on linux.
There's a difference between distribution (eg. Steam.. ugh), and actually getting it ported in the first place. Though I can say right now any Linux app distributed via/requiring a Steam-like app won't be getting sold to me, and a number of other people.

And the remarks on making sure the Wine users can continue to play their games is laughable. There is no Linux, nor Wine in the table for them.
Money is money, is it not? If we stop playing, they lose out on the sales from us. Simple as that.

How can they see how many Wine buyers they have, when all of the numbers that go back are Windows sale?
Could be part of game registration, to select the OS you use (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Wine). Games that collect online statistics are even easier.. the app can do a simple check for Wine, and pass that to the server as the OS instead of Windows. The GFX driver and audio driver names are tell-tale signs. It's not like Wine hides itself.. it just aims to behave like Windows on X11.

Do you think it's a bright idea to sue your customers? Well the RIAA labels do- because they don't think those people ARE their customers.
And the RIAA is one of the most hated of such organizations these days, is it not? Several people even saying that they're doing what they are because they're in the death throws of the current way of business.

[Svartalf]

And the RIAA is one of the most hated of such organizations these days, is it not? Several people even saying that they're doing what they are because they're in the death throws of the current way of business.

Consider this... Who owns most of the publishing interests in the game industry right at the moment?

[Chris]

Consider this... Who owns most of the publishing interests in the game industry right at the moment?
If I had to guess, from things I hear I'd say EA.

[niniendowarrior]

Could be part of game registration, to select the OS you use (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Wine). Games that collect online statistics are even easier.. the app can do a simple check for Wine, and pass that to the server as the OS instead of Windows. The GFX driver and audio driver names are tell-tale signs. It's not like Wine hides itself.. it just aims to behave like Windows on X11.


Heh. It's not the question of how it can be done, but whether they even bother to do that. Sure, it can be part of game registration. Will they bother to check that? Nope.

[Svartalf]

If I had to guess, from things I hear I'd say EA.

Heh... Not really. About half of them are the same people RIAA or MPAA represent. The other half are players like EA, which have the same attitude as the others. You might want to think about that for a bit before going on and on about "Money is money..."... ;)

[Fixxer_Linux]

Heh. It's not the question of how it can be done, but whether they even bother to do that. Sure, it can be part of game registration. Will they bother to check that? Nope.

You can also register your game and say "other" when answering "what operating system are you using". Generally, there's a field where you can write "linux".
I've done that way when registering my ID titles (Quake4, Doom3) on activision web site.
It's probably useless, but it's worth a try. I also buy my games @ tuxgames.com, as they said they can report sales stats. I could find my games at cheaper prices on my local store game...

[joshuapurcell]

I agree with Fixxer_Linux on buying from places such as TuxGames. That seems to be the best way to have the game count as a Linux sales at this point.

[gilboa]

You can also register your game and say "other" when answering "what operating system are you using". Generally, there's a field where you can write "linux".
I've done that way when registering my ID titles (Quake4, Doom3) on activision web site.
It's probably useless, but it's worth a try. I also buy my games @ tuxgames.com, as they said they can report sales stats. I could find my games at cheaper prices on my local store game...

/+1.
I -only- buy native games.
I -only- buy native games at Linux gaming shops.

Hopefully the long term loss (higher prices + International shipping fees) will be translated to long term gain. (More native games.)
But even if it doesn't - at least I'm voting with my wallet.

- Gilboa

[etymxris]

UT3 needs linux more than linux needs UT3. The community is dead. Epic obviously isn't happy about it as they close threads like this one (http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=619205) without comment. When I look at UT3 Warfare servers online, there are about 6 that actually have people playing on them. The other game types fare similarly. When I look at Team Fortress 2 servers online, there are several hundred with people playing at any given time.

Someone responded to me earlier saying that this attitude perpetuated itself, and maybe that's right. But one of the most important aspects of an online game is the size and nature of the community playing it. If UT3 was open source like Nexiuz, we might hope that future revisions attract more and more players. But instead it's a proprietary product, and the online community is unlikely to be revived or expanded by any patches or updates to gameplay.

It's time to look past UT3 to other opportunities for linux gaming.

See also:
http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

[Thetargos]

Wow! Q3A is still way up there... Though I believe these stats have some validity... They may be biased or skewed towards those servers GameSpy actually "spies", however it would be more interesting to know a time frame for these stats (I doubt these are the current stats... or are they?, if so... OUCH! action on-line gaming has gone RETRO!)

[quintesse]

Wow! Q3A is still way up there... Though I believe these stats have some validity... They may be biased or skewed towards those servers GameSpy actually "spies", however it would be more interesting to know a time frame for these stats (I doubt these are the current stats... or are they?, if so... OUCH! action on-line gaming has gone RETRO!)

Yeah, Counter Strike isn't in there for example, which I still play regularly, and that one has many thousands of servers as well.

[etymxris]

Yeah, Counter Strike isn't in there for example, which I still play regularly, and that one has many thousands of servers as well.

Counter Strike is under "Half Life". Click on a game name to see the "mods" for that game. Team Fortress 2 is under "Half Life 2".

[quintesse]

Counter Strike is under "Half Life". Click on a game name to see the "mods" for that game. Team Fortress 2 is under "Half Life 2".

Aaah, you're right, I hadn't seen that. And as I thought CS is actually responsible for the largest amount of the Half Life-based servers.

Edit: as is Counter Strike : Source for Half Life 2. So basically both Half Life categories could be folded into one monstrous Counter Strike item. Unbelievable really that a game so old is still so popular!

[Thetargos]

Another shocking stat is that of Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. Though not as large as HL or Q3A, it does have quite some players on it (or it was when I saw the stats last night). These stats are interesting in deed. Alas, they may represent but a fraction of the total of games servers.

[xav1r]

Which brings me to the question. Recently, the .map source of the wolfenstein ET levels were released, in celebration of the 5 years of wolf:ET. Does anyone think the full source code of wolf:ET would be released? Im not that interested in that game per se, but my question goes into the question of whether they (Splash Damage) release the source code of the games they made, when the IP doesnt belong to them. If thats the case, then eventually the source code of Quake Wars with its cool megatexture would be released. :)