Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to get the Linux version of my games?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    @Svartalf

    If that would be only 20k$, then where is a GTA port? I guess the money to do so would be no problem als there is already a PS3 one
    Are you kidding? GTAIV would be one of those $250k beasts.

    As for your answer, that's mine for right now on that one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by grigi View Post
      Well, I try to hold off on buying a game if I know a linux port is in the works, e.g. Sacred Gold. or X3.
      How often I have walked past Sacred in bargain bins... So tempting to just buy it there... but I'm still waiting.
      Two words there... Thank. You.

      Seriously, folks. I can't state it often enough. I don't know what X3 holds in for our future, but Sacred doing at least decent holds a very good chance of having the sequel getting done for the Linux community. If it doesn't do well, there will be no sequel likely to be happening- ever.

      There's a reason I keep pointing out to people that buying the Windows stuff or demanding a "free" version when it does get done for Linux is so counterproductive.

      Also since the only way for me to get hold of any linux-only games, is to buy it online, over post. I can wait the ~3 weeks it takes to get here, but the issue is, I get nailed solidly by the import duties... Sigh, the virtues of living in Africa :P
      That's got to stink.

      Comment


      • #18
        Could be me but I think this is a dead end. You need more buyers to raise the number of sold Linux units... but on the other hand you need publishers to toss out a Linux binary otherwise there is nothing to buy from. It's a devil circle and in all honesty I do not belief that "this" is going to be a solution. Especially I do not think that the users are the one which can change it. They are not numerable enough. The change has to come from the companies and if they don't change the userbase stands no chance to ever change this. You can call this a pessimistic view... I call it just a "realistic" view.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by xav1r View Post
          Usually the linux binary making takes a lot of resources and time, for the same game, and most devs dont want to spend more resources and time on the same game. Usually the first developed games are so dependant on windows technologies like directx, d3d, etc, it would take a lot of effort to make it working on linux, so they dont bother.
          Which is why Microsoft doesn't like cross platform game engines(Still think its them stopping the UT3 client)


          Originally posted by Svartalf
          It costs X dollars to make a Windows version. It typically costs 10-15% more to make the thing properly cross platform- and if the studio doesn't design it the right way (which is disturbingly often...) it can cost much more than that. Depending on how clean the version is, a porting interest can expend 5-10K in labor, possibly more (more like probably so...), just to migrate the codebase. If it was written with a bit of portability in mind, it's only the 10% that the porting studio has to incur. That's if they're lucky. If not, it can cost as much as 50% of the development cost making the title happen.

          I am fully behind what Svartalf is saying, I would rather pay royalties to use Linux and increase the chance of others been ported than windoze.


          Pete

          Comment


          • #20
            @Svartalf

            Is it really so hard to convert a PS3 version to Linux? I thought they need to use OpenGL there too?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              @Svartalf

              Is it really so hard to convert a PS3 version to Linux? I thought they need to use OpenGL there too?
              PS3 does not use openGL for a vast majority of their games. They use a ctm solution called libgcm.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Kano View Post
                @Svartalf

                Is it really so hard to convert a PS3 version to Linux? I thought they need to use OpenGL there too?
                Yeah, they do. The big problem is in ROYALTIES, Kano. That's not a dev effort cost (something like incurring my services, needing libs, etc...)- it's a cost to belly up to the bar to be able to even SEE the code to port it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  PS3 does not use openGL for a vast majority of their games. They use a ctm solution called libgcm.
                  They DO, however, offer an ES solution and the CTM solution means you have to do many of the same rendering abstractions to work with targeting anything OTHER than the PS3. If you use that, you still need to have a rendering backend that understands the differences between DX9 and libgcm (or OpenGL ES, or...).

                  It's not porting effort as I pointed out to Kano- it's getting to look at the code costs that are going to be rather high on GTA titles...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
                    Could be me but I think this is a dead end. You need more buyers to raise the number of sold Linux units... but on the other hand you need publishers to toss out a Linux binary otherwise there is nothing to buy from. It's a devil circle and in all honesty I do not belief that "this" is going to be a solution. Especially I do not think that the users are the one which can change it. They are not numerable enough. The change has to come from the companies and if they don't change the userbase stands no chance to ever change this. You can call this a pessimistic view... I call it just a "realistic" view.
                    Honestly, I think they're numerable enough- they're just thinking they're entitled to stuff more than anything else. When you have at least 300-500 units in sales and torrent traffic amounting to some 5-10k total units out in the field, I'd be inclined to think we're numerous enough to matter. It's just that the people out there seem to think they have to have it for free because they either "paid for it once", "think it's too old", "it tanked on Windows", "think it's too expensive", "can't find it", or a host of other rationalizations I've seen given over the last handful of years.

                    In the aforementioned remark, I do not attack these people (I think it's wrong-headed of them for varying reasons, but...they're the customer I'm trying to convince they wanna buy from me, so... ) but state the facts as I've seen them. We don't have commercially supported iD titles, and he's taken to no longer concerning himself with an "official" version for Linux (though he states one, more unofficial than in the past, will get done...) because of the debacle with Q3:A back ages ago where we couldn't wait and got the Windows SKUs and converted instead and sold only 200 units for Linux.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      @Svartalf

                      I thought the other way around: what would have got such a big company to pay to be able to provide a Linux binary for their top games - which already run on PS3. As the Linux variant usually only can have got online verification a delay of a few month would not really hurt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                        Honestly, I think they're numerable enough- they're just thinking they're entitled to stuff more than anything else. When you have at least 300-500 units in sales and torrent traffic amounting to some 5-10k total units out in the field, I'd be inclined to think we're numerous enough to matter. It's just that the people out there seem to think they have to have it for free because they either "paid for it once", "think it's too old", "it tanked on Windows", "think it's too expensive", "can't find it", or a host of other rationalizations I've seen given over the last handful of years.

                        In the aforementioned remark, I do not attack these people (I think it's wrong-headed of them for varying reasons, but...they're the customer I'm trying to convince they wanna buy from me, so... ) but state the facts as I've seen them. We don't have commercially supported iD titles, and he's taken to no longer concerning himself with an "official" version for Linux (though he states one, more unofficial than in the past, will get done...) because of the debacle with Q3:A back ages ago where we couldn't wait and got the Windows SKUs and converted instead and sold only 200 units for Linux.
                        Maybe the linux flavors of the games should have some sort of modest discount price. Maybe 25% at least at the begginning, to entice more customers to buy them. If i saw a native *insert cool game title here* linux game for $5.98 i'd buy it inmediately, no matter if i bought it before for windows.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I guess only hardcore Linux users really buy those games. Gamers usually have got another partition to play current games and for the rest they can use Linux. Of course it does not feel so good to reboot every time Somebody might feel a bit stupid to pay full price for an old Linux game when the Win version is already low-budget. It would be different when the Linux port would be out at least at the same time or a very short delay, but not over 1 year later.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Is it possible, for a company like LGP, to make a deal with Blizzard in order to develop native Linux client of their games ?
                            Maybe, they would have to discuss with Vivendi Universal who should hold the rights for Blizzard's games.
                            As their publisher doesn't want to support Linux because of the market size, they may be OK if another company proposes to do it instead. Because it's not only a development effort, but also a support one.
                            Blizzard's games like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 are really strong IPs for PC gamers. Having those games running natively on Linux, would certainly help our favorite platform to gain popularity among gamers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              All this makes zero sense to me

                              If I'm in the porting business, I must pay royalties to port games? Er, how does that work? Ain't *I* supposed to get paid for porting? How do I make money?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                All this makes zero sense to me

                                If I'm in the porting business, I must pay royalties to port games? Er, how does that work? Ain't *I* supposed to get paid for porting? How do I make money?
                                Usually, you pay a royalty to get the rights access. And then you owe a small percentage of the proceeds in addition to get the right to publish your version.

                                Welcome to the wonderful world of media. They've structured the whole thing much like the music and book publishing business and it's a nasty mess. Really, it is.

                                How do you make money? Heh...

                                You have to have people buy your titles in sufficient volumes to offset those royalty costs.

                                If you sell enough of the units for several differing titles, they lower the bite a bit on things like the up-front royalty- or, if you're lucky, you get to be involved with the development directly and don't have to owe anything other than the publication per-unit royalties.

                                With people going "Where's my binary? I've already bought it on the Windows side..." (Keep in mind, I'm not picking on you, I'm explaining something here...) and never once realizing that it's more like the Console to the PC space or vice versa (in which, they get the joy of paying for it in many cases too...), you have insufficient sales and resources to get into that position. You lose and the people who might want to play the game on the platform in question lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X