Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There Exists A Native Linux Port Of CryEngine 3

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

  • There Exists A Native Linux Port Of CryEngine 3

    Phoronix: There Exists A Native Linux Port Of CryEngine 3

    While most Linux gamers are currently eager for the imminent news concerning Valve's Linux client efforts, there's some more interesting news that I've learned this week as well: there exists a native Linux port of CryEngine 3...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA4Mjk

  • #2
    there will never be any game release. so its a complete waste of time.

    Comment


    • #3
      So this effectively means that Crytek only leaves the Linux port as an option to their licensees.
      I wonder why they don't provide an Linux client for Crysis 2?
      Maybe they don't want to provide support.
      But then again, they could just release the client as is and label it "may kill kittens". :/

      Comment


      • #4
        Isn't the game industry as a whole, dying?

        Personally I think consoles games have commanded the PC gaming field and therefore killed highest capactity innovsation that PC games used to push. IF there's any money to be had it's in selling phone games, and targeting simpletons on the consoles.

        Also the economy of Western Nations isn't helping.

        Maybe I'm wrong?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by e8hffff View Post
          Isn't the game industry as a whole, dying?
          At least the innovative heart of the large-scale game industry died a long time ago, I agree.
          Now, if you look carefully, indie game developers and the kickstarter stuff
          might fill this gap. Of course on a much smaller scale.

          Comment


          • #6
            well unlike the WoW client, cryengine 3 is.. well an engine. afaik, crytek does license it to other companies, so if that company chooses to port their game to linux then they can.

            what i don't get is why bother porting code when you don't support the platform? maybe blizzard did it because they're filthy rich and had the resources to waste time and money like that, but crytek isn't nearly as wealthy and they're not nearly as selfish as blizzard so they must've made this for a reason.


            @e8hffff
            I wouldn't say the gaming industry is dying, the problem is companies like ea and activision are buying out every single good or even half-decent development group and corrupt the games to the point where they profit. so all we're left with is a bunch of mediocre, unoriginal games that are extremely incomplete without DLC. the newest commercial game i bought was borderlands, and that game isn't new.

            movies have the same problem. i haven't seen a single movie i found enjoyable that was made within the past year and a half. i admit i don't go out to see them often, but that's also because none of them look interesting in their trailers.

            its all about money these days. major companies can ensure quality, but they couldn't give you something original or entertaining even if you removed games/movies from history within the past 20 years.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by e8hffff View Post
              Isn't the game industry as a whole, dying?
              Your wrong, because you are actually right. The industri has already died, it happened in 1 region in 1 spesific era. The Great Video Game Crash of 1983. And why are you right? Because it was just a few years before the game marked globalized across regions. Basically what happened is that companies attempted to hoard money on making shit games from niece games, and combined with the technical limitations of the age it created a marked that stagnated because there was no sensible way to filter out the crap from the good. Basically companies attempted to launch blockbusters before they existed, and failed to put enough resources in it, and enough companies was doing it as the same time to completely saturnate the marked.
              But why the crash in 1983 happened is the exact reason why it can't happen today: The trade barrier between the regions no longer exist, the hardware power of the consols also filter out a lot of crap, and the cost of marked entry is so high that it also reduces the amount of crap we receive. On the top of this, all the console makers are doing crap filtering of some sort, at the least a tiny bit. And this is combined with review mags and sites, and we even have 100% peer review on sites like 4chan, where after filtering out he hate and trolling you have a good picture of how good a game is.
              The crash of 1983 won't ever happen again, however, what happens instead is that companies go Titanic for odd reasons. Read about what happened to Sega and the Dreamcast: Sega was about to go up on its ties, and really throw in some heavy weight in the marked. Instead... it flopped because of a number of reasons, while the hardware was good, and this flop was too dearly costy. At a relative point, studios like NWC and Black Isle also went down, for financial reasons.

              Look at it this way: The gaming marked won't crash, but a niece of it will crash, most likely the blockbuster part of it, but it may be too large to even be able to fail, because the blockbuster is not a niece.
              However, on the top of this, we also have Kickstarter and Steam platforms. There will be no great marked crash because there is no central point to the marked, and nothing is really connected properly.
              This is a great contrast to the normal stuff that runs society, where everything is connected to the banks in some forms, and a whole lot of it is depending on about every company buying from other companies to create a fast enough cash circulation to avoid stagnation.

              Comment


              • #8
                Reading the news, it feels like many companies does have linux port of some titles.
                I still don't get, if they have done the port, why don't they sell it or make it available, to try to boost the sales.

                I can understand a company who don't want to invest in a linux port.
                But i really can't understand that when having this port done or almost done, why they just don't even try to sell it?

                Imagine that I could accept paying a few bucks more to get a native linux client and being able to simply play modern game titles on Linux.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Crytek is the last company to make anything for Linux. More then likely they're preparing for an uncertain future. Most likely due to Valve being also interested in Linux. For the longest time Apple had an X86 port for this very purpose.

                  If Steam makes it to Linux, there's a lot of reasons to make linux games as well. Especially if Android has a desktop future, which I hope doesn't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IIRC the original Far Cry (not sure they already call the engine 'Cryengine') already had both DX and OGL renderers. And they both worked under wine. So perhaps they have some kind of abstraction layer that they kept til today..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      hey guys, quick question. how many more fps's do there need to be before there are too many?

                      next question, how many more fps's with an m4 does there need to be before there are too many?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by benjamin545 View Post
                        hey guys, quick question. how many more fps's do there need to be before there are too many?

                        next question, how many more fps's with an m4 does there need to be before there are too many?
                        69 and half

                        who said anything about next FPS game on linux?
                        it was just the cryengine that apperantly supports OpenGL

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          CryEngine3 seems interesting if someone didn't want to go the Open Source route on Linux. Unigine is already available too and not "yet another FPS." Too bad the possibility id Tech 5 coming to Linux and eventually Open Source is pretty far in the future.

                          But yes, I don't know why companies sit on Linux ports. There's also an original Linux Deus Ex and Unreal Tournament 3 that were finished, but not released.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In other 5-year-old news... Any title that is available on PS3 has an openGL (EGL) renderer and an ELF binary available.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              they dont want to release the linux ports simply because of support. when i say support. i mean the first month of release support. these days. the way the game market is. if your game doesnt sell well before it even launches. it sucks. everything is pre-order now. linux has basicaly no impact on pre-orders. when you release a game, its over. nobody cares what you do with it after that. look at how many games dont even get properly patched to work correctly with all the stuff theey were suspose to work with. these are even console games that a year after they are released, if something is wrong with them the devs dont care to fix it at all.

                              the linux port will basicaly never be done when the windows,mac ports are done so there wont be release day support. and you can say all you want how they could just release it without official support, that wont stop all the threads in their forums about how do you get it to work in linux.

                              really what is gunna change this never ending problem of companies not wanting to release a linux port is we have to make a more stable target platform. its getting better and better every week. i mean it really use to be a nightmare but now with the distros acting in a more unified direction, we can at least start to create a check list of what you need to do to work on linux. some of this iccullus has been pointing out.

                              one interesting thing is that for years the way a company brought their game to linux like ut 2004 and doom and how wine did it, was basicaly to support the nvidia binary driver and then end of story. that was acceptible for SOOO many years. ati was a joke on linux, intel had just as good of support as it did on windows for most games (pretty much no support at all, and if there was it was unplayably slow), and then, nobody else mattered (at one time voodoo did, but those are a time long gone).

                              today frglx is for some reason a factor. it sucks, but its good enough to now be a problem when porting your game. if your game is made right, porting should be not much more than recompile and test, the games that have mac and windows support are proboobly made so that even if you didnt use sdl, its not much more than a couple guy changing some display setup and audio setup support. what the real problem comes down to is " why the fsck does this game render perfectly on windows driver opengl, the mac opengl, but now it acts differently with the various linux drivers"

                              one day gallium3d based mesa opengl, opencl, video accel will be awsome. it will be a couple more years, but its coming. look at what really has happened. dont look at how you feel right now when your geforce 580 is slow and buggy and therefore open drivers must suck. look at how in 2000-2006 we were all told by everyone that graphics divers are so mystious and complex and how every little peice and part is super optimised in secret proprietery ways and its so interwoven throughout the entire system that there is noway a couple linux hackers could ever understand it in their spare time. but the reality of it is that the most dificult part of designing the graphics drivers is the actual design of the graphics stack. there is a reason why gallium3d is mentioned so much in and of itself as a seperate entity from mesa. and that is because it actualy gives a structure to the entire graphics stack. beforehand some people got some stuff working on ati harware, you know the old r300c driver that came about. that and the nouveau driver when it really just first started, but those were mostly just usefull for getting 2d support and the dri componants started. it has been little more than 5 years since the initial gallium prototypeing and it took time to convert the nvidia and ati driver over to gallium. really i dont think nuch 3d stuff even starrted until late late 2009 so its ben not much more than 2 years. its getting to the point where hardware thats a generation old is working pretty well, the high end cards might not be fast but most of the 3d functionality is there.

                              kinda got off toppic a little with the graphics driver history textwall, but, it really is what linux support boils down to.there have been solutions for other problems on linux like how to properly package and distribute, and how to deal with library dependancies, but you cant ship your own libgl. so what it really boils down to is when the distros can ship fully functional, efficient, speed competative, and hardened opensource drivers out of the box, we solve the number one problem with commercial games on linux. iccullus cought a lot of flak for saying the opensource drivers suck, but they did. they arent perfect now still, and if you were to release an unsupported linux binary today, your forums would have the never ending "linux problems" threads.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X