Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blizzard's Diablo III On Linux?

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

  • #16
    I have a feeling LGP would port titles with no cost in advance, only for part of the linux sales. Therefore it would be zero cost to Blizzard or whomever, no?

    I recall that LGP currently pays to port, nobody approaches them.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DoDoENT View Post
      the non-existence of good DRM software for Linux that would protect their software from being illegally copied
      Lets see...they could release Serious Sam for Linux (without DRM) and make *some* money or not release SS on Linux at all and make zero money. Hmm.

      Hasn't the Humble bundles proved over and over that Linux gamers *will* pay for non-DRM games?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by elanthis View Post
        He nailed it on the head with the limited resources comment. The clueless naive non-programmers here keep bitching that a Linux port should require little time (though it requires far more than the non-professional hobbyists ever estimate), but the reality is that _any_ time spent on Linux is time not spent on something else. Between a feature that will increase sales on Windows by 5% or a feature that enables a small fraction of that number of people but the game on a fringe platform, guess which one any sane producer will pick. Until Linux has a sizable number of gamers on it, the cost/benefit ratio will rarely be with it for most game developers. The indie guys are Linux's best bet because the market tends to work out for them getting a sizable percentage of sales from Linux users.
        Blizzard has always done mac ports. Even when mac's usershare was much smaller then linux's market share. (Yes, pre-iphone that was not such a strange thing)

        Comment


        • #19
          They said just like any editor would ever say.
          They don't work on it, nor they do plan to work on it.

          They perhaps would do it, but first a demand must appear. Then, within reaching a certain level of demand, they could starting thinking of investing some bucks and time on working on the linux client.
          The time a demand appear, that they think about it, then start the portage and sell it, months and months will pass the way. Perhaps for Diablo 4 or 5.
          They probably look at the Linux Steam client figures to see whether or not it's worth it. Means month at least of waiting, knowing that their top-notch priority will be to correct the bugs of the Windows version of Diablo3 prior to anything else.
          Meet late 2013, not before IMHO.

          However, with Mac OS running on Intel, does a linux client need that amount of time to be shaped and compiled?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Fixxer_Linux View Post
            However, with Mac OS running on Intel, does a linux client need that amount of time to be shaped and compiled?
            Just my naive and amateurish thoughts...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
              Because anonymous anecdotal comments on the internet should always be taken as gospel.
              This is not anecdotal comment. It happened to at least one guy because he used a trainer and, supposedly, that's against the EULA. Because by using a trainer you can get some achievements in an unfair way and this doesn't sit well with other players. While there may be some legitimate concern behind this, I don't care about these practices at all. I want to be able to give myself 1.000.000 minerals and vespene gas while playing by myself, if I so choose.

              Comment


              • #22
                its simple: no money from me for blizzard.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by leif81 View Post
                  Lets see...they could release Serious Sam for Linux (without DRM) and make *some* money or not release SS on Linux at all and make zero money. Hmm.

                  Hasn't the Humble bundles proved over and over that Linux gamers *will* pay for non-DRM games?
                  I agree. But their choice is to sell Serious Sam only through Steam and their choice not to release it without DRM (they obviously doesn't wany their game being illegally copied with ease - that is reasonable because Croteam is from Croatia, and legal software in Croatia is very rare - it is almost certain that if they release non-DRM version it will be at same day available for free on all East-European torrent sites).

                  Humble bundles has proved that Linux gamers will pay for non-DRM games, but obviously this proof is not enough for some people.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DoDoENT View Post
                    I agree. But their choice is to sell Serious Sam only through Steam and their choice not to release it without DRM (they obviously doesn't wany their game being illegally copied with ease - that is reasonable because Croteam is from Croatia, and legal software in Croatia is very rare - it is almost certain that if they release non-DRM version it will be at same day available for free on all East-European torrent sites).

                    Humble bundles has proved that Linux gamers will pay for non-DRM games, but obviously this proof is not enough for some people.
                    What? It's ALREADY free on every torrent site.

                    Whether or not a game has DRM it will still nearly always be available for free on torrent sites the same day it's released. This has been proven time and again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KameZero View Post
                      Whether or not a game has DRM it will still nearly always be available for free on torrent sites the same day it's released. This has been proven time and again.
                      the first 2 or 3 bundles were nice so i got them, the rest of the bundles weren't interesting enough imo. so not all games pleases every one. arcade games aren't my cup of tea. the only thing that i get when checking the sales of humble bundle is that linux gamers very well present the numbers doesn't count much if linux gamers represent about 1/3 of potential buyers.

                      DRM sucks and will always suck, though a 60 USD game isn't really tempting price to get a game. at least not for me. i do recall that limited collector editions games back in the end of the 90s were about 60USD as highest price. the cost/fun ratio is truly poor nowaday. Lack-Of-Vision has been a very stupid publisher for ages and now since it merged(?)/acquired blizzard well it went for the worst.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Blizzard is loosing almost nothing by not supporting linux, why would they bother.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Marix View Post
                          That linux port would have the only reason for me to buy it...
                          Exactly and that's why I won't buy it. I would rather buy Torchlight 2, just to support Diablo competition.
                          Last edited by kraftman; 05-06-2012, 03:28 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                            Phoronix: Blizzard's Diablo III On Linux?

                            In a recent gaming interview, Blizzard's director of the forthcoming Diablo III game was asked about a Linux client...

                            http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5Njk
                            Limited resources my ass, WoWcrack has how many users that pay how much per year these days? Last time I checked a few years ago it was pulling in a over a Billion(1000 millions) a year on WoWcrack alone...

                            Every Blizzard game sells damn well and they know theres a Linux demand due to all the people playing their games via Wine, which is what they're betting on, that anyone wanting to play Diablo 3 will just make it run on Wine and make a profile of WineTricks or PlayOnlinux. This is why I really don't like the idea of Wine...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oliver View Post
                              Blizzard has always done mac ports. Even when mac's usershare was much smaller then linux's market share. (Yes, pre-iphone that was not such a strange thing)
                              Exactly, I was a Mac user when they where "less then 1%" of the market, yet there seemed to be plenty of big name titles being ported to it, mostly by MacPlay, but my WarCraft2 Battle.Net Edition V. 2.01A CD works on Mac OS 7.6 and has been patched to even run on OS X on Intel Macs, not to mention Windows 95 and NT4 support all on the retail disc available everywhere ported first party BY Blizzard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                                Blizzard is loosing almost nothing by not supporting linux, why would they bother.
                                Because porting from Mac OS X to Linux isn't really that much of a stretch seeing as they've supported Macs since their user base was smaller then Linux is now...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X