Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD/ATi + Blizzard

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by me262 View Post
    Being seen as ungrateful, hackers, and people who want everything for free. There are people like that, but it's a stereotype in my eyes. I certainly don't fit that profile. Most people that play commercial games don't.

    "As far as I'm concerned, we paid for it, it's ours to f*** with." (Author Unknown)
    Heh... Guess what...that's what they view us as. That's WHY we have some of the issues that we do finding people willing to give us commercial games. When you have more pirated copies of LGP titles than they've sold, it confirms that in their minds.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
      Heh... Are YOU going to tell one of the mainline Independent studios that can self-publish if they so saw fit, take it to ANY publisher they see fit to do so, that they CAN'T do what they've done? I wouldn't, even if I was Vivendi. It's just not a good thing to do.
      I know, what I meant (before I read how was the whole deal) was that if several of these studios under the same roof could take the hint from those other bigger studios and experiment with Linux releases and stuff... Seeing as how the deal was played out, I seriously doubt it that even if one such [independent] studio did so, they'd still block it all the same (like they did with Blizzard... And look who is it we're talking about! Alas, Blizzard is "property" of Vivendi, and now with its new name will have even greater exposure and presure)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Thetargos View Post
        Alas, Blizzard is "property" of Vivendi, and now with its new name will have even greater exposure and pressure)
        I think Vivendi is just the publisher, otherwise we would have been seeing a Vivendi Universal logo in the company movies, instead of an inconspicuous spot on the box.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by me262 View Post
          I think Vivendi is just the publisher, otherwise we would have been seeing a Vivendi Universal logo in the company movies, instead of an inconspicuous spot on the box.
          Not according to Vivendi, however Blizzard's own profile would suggest otherwise. Strange.

          Comment


          • #20
            What happened to the possiblity that Mark Shuttelworth will try to push Blizzard into doing their games for Linux?

            Comment


            • #21
              We had a Linux version early on for compatiability purposes, but have no plans to make the final game for Linux.
              that sucks. as usual game gets developed on linux/unix and ported to windows :/ ( i believe most id games were developed on unix and then initially released for windows ). blizzard might be concerned about copy protection issues on linux and the fact that the os is a fluid platform (frequent api changes etc), where windows provides more stable ground.

              but if it comes to online gaming most money comes from monthly account fees, not from the actual game sales.

              i can think of one huge advantage of linux based game - you can box it together with an operating system :]

              think about it - if there was a linux edition of e.g. world of warcraft or warcraft 3 with a linux (e.g ubuntu) install cd in the box, or even blizzard's dedicated distro. wouldn't that be cool?
              Last edited by yoshi314; 07-11-2008, 06:38 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
                think about it - if there was a linux edition of e.g. world of warcraft or warcraft 3 with a linux (e.g ubuntu) install cd in the box, or even blizzard's dedicated distro. wouldn't that be cool?
                What about the other software many gamers would run in the background? like the Voice Chat?

                Admittedly, this could offer major benefits for them in terms of debugging: We provide a LiveCD to run the game for users, if the problem doesn't occur there, it's not our problem...

                I don't think that many "casual" gamers would be willing to reboot for a game though, and the hardcore would complain about lack of functionality.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Thetargos View Post
                  Not according to Vivendi, however Blizzard's own profile would suggest otherwise. Strange.
                  Companies try to claim rights where they don't have any, publishers well known for this trick. Disney famously lost a case in the UK for that: Peter Pans Toyshop, who they were suing for infringing their IP won expenses after legal representation was made to the court on behalf of the Great Ormonde Street Hospital that payment had been made for use of the said IP, which they owned in perpetuity courtesy of an Act of Parliment.

                  I would put more trust in Blizzards claim.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
                    that sucks. as usual game gets developed on linux/unix and ported to windows :/ ( i believe most id games were developed on unix and then initially released for windows ). blizzard might be concerned about copy protection issues on linux and the fact that the os is a fluid platform (frequent api changes etc), where windows provides more stable ground.
                    The protection issues are a valid concern. With an apparent three or four to one ratio of infringed to legitimate copies in the wild of many of LGP's titles fuels that fire.

                    The API changes, etc. are not a concern, but more of a perception- honest.

                    The Windows world isn't any less stable (With deltas in DirectX each time you turn around, requiring almost always a complete re-write if you want to use the new one... Deltas between behaviors in 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista... It's not that we change all that much (Honestly, if done right, your binaries can still run nearly 6-10 years from now as long as the ABI below you doesn't break. The same can't be said as much for Windows titles... )- it's that they're FAMILIAR with the Windows world. It is a known. Linux is not.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
                      I don't think that many "casual" gamers would be willing to reboot for a game though, and the hardcore would complain about lack of functionality.
                      Well, most casual gamers are console gamers and when they want to play a different game, they technically have to "reboot" too hehe. But yeah, the technical crowd might complain, might not though either, if there are other options that is.
                      Last edited by Malikith; 07-11-2008, 07:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                        The protection issues are a valid concern. With an apparent three or four to one ratio of infringed to legitimate copies in the wild of many of LGP's titles fuels that fire.

                        The API changes, etc. are not a concern, but more of a perception- honest.

                        The Windows world isn't any less stable (With deltas in DirectX each time you turn around, requiring almost always a complete re-write if you want to use the new one... Deltas between behaviors in 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista... It's not that we change all that much (Honestly, if done right, your binaries can still run nearly 6-10 years from now as long as the ABI below you doesn't break. The same can't be said as much for Windows titles... )- it's that they're FAMILIAR with the Windows world. It is a known. Linux is not.
                        Yeah alot of these game companies are like children who are afraid of the dark. Or a better way of saying it, vampires who are afraid of the light haha. I understand they want to protect their investments and everything, and with how crucial things are at the moment. The point that needs to get across to Linux users pirating LGP games is that if you don't want to buy it, thats fine but don't pirate it because that makes everyone including LGP look like a bunch of thieves which is not true at all. Game companies want reasons so they don't have to port to Linux, and the more reasons they have, the more they'll resist. We gotta take away these reasons, even if they're not valid in realistic terms but they are valid in their business terms.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
                          that sucks. as usual game gets developed on linux/unix and ported to windows :/ ( i believe most id games were developed on unix and then initially released for windows ). blizzard might be concerned about copy protection issues on linux and the fact that the os is a fluid platform (frequent api changes etc), where windows provides more stable ground.
                          Granted there are a few things that emerge for backward compatibility's sake. Take libstdc++-3.3 for instance. Backward compatibility for programs built with GCC 3.3. Don't know any programs that use it, but I'm sure they're closed source, and binary-only.

                          Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
                          think about it - if there was a linux edition of e.g. world of warcraft or warcraft 3 with a linux (e.g ubuntu) install cd in the box, or even blizzard's dedicated distro. wouldn't that be cool?
                          Double-edged sword here.
                          Pros:
                          - Static programs make supporting debugging easier (no messing with multiple versions.
                          - LiveCD - Be able to boot to the CD directly, making it very lightweight, very efficient. No WindowManager or Desktop system to get in the way. xstart --display :0 /usr/bin/War3
                          Cons:
                          - LiveCD UPDATES! Unless you want to press 100,000+ CD's everytime you update your program, the only other option is a UDF DVD-R (or RW), or release an ISO online... (This may work if the distro doesn't come with any programs)
                          - You still have to be able to support a multitude of hardware, meaning they have to tinker with the kernel / modules / dependencies everytime someone reports a problem.
                          - You're also at the mercy of what equipment works. "Why don't I have wireless access?" "Do you have a card with a (chipset that doesn't work *AHEM* TI *AHEM!*) chipset?" "Yeah!" "Sorry, you're screwed."

                          For the record though, BlizzardOS running IceWM does have a ring to it...
                          Last edited by me262; 07-12-2008, 03:05 AM. Reason: Just like me to not finish a thought.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Malikith View Post
                            Or a better way of saying it, vampires who are afraid of the light haha.
                            Oooh. I like that one...

                            Originally posted by Malikith View Post
                            I understand they want to protect their investments and everything, and with how crucial things are at the moment. The point that needs to get across to Linux users pirating LGP games is that if you don't want to buy it, thats fine but don't pirate it because that makes everyone including LGP look like a bunch of thieves which is not true at all. Game companies want reasons so they don't have to port to Linux, and the more reasons they have, the more they'll resist. We gotta take away these reasons, even if they're not valid in realistic terms but they are valid in their business terms.
                            Shall we start porting Starforce 4 anyone?
                            The reason there's so much piracy, is that no protection software existed for it, short of LGP's new online system.
                            (To my knowledge...)

                            A few other alternatives I can think of
                            - A "shareware" version of the game: This can access only a few single levels, crippled multi and online play (can't leave people COMPLETELY out of having a party with friends...) once someone purchases a key, integrate it into the program file or in an encrypted archive, and validate it when multiplayer and online functions are used.
                            - Some checking mechanism in the kernel that will see the medium for what it is, a CD-R, DVD-R, or loopmount (regardless of the book-type).
                            - Outside sector hashing: I remember reading that some of these commercial programs can put a crippled copy in the real spot, and the correct program in an outside section. Dummy program hashes and signature checks the correct program, once validated, runs.

                            Have I given LGP any ways of implementation yet?
                            Last edited by me262; 07-12-2008, 03:03 AM. Reason: Shouldn't shoot my mouth off when I'm really talking out of my rear.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm not sure why Blizzard should be afraid of porting WoW for example. I mean, how the hell do you pirate a paid-for MMORPG?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The fact that there's 3rd party server software circling is kind of a sticking point. I tried it at one point. Buggy scripting...
                                Naturally this 3rd party software, I'm thinking it's for professional clans and the like...

                                But the fact that it is a pay-for-play does make sense. There's no CD needed at all after it's installed.
                                Last edited by me262; 07-20-2008, 12:52 AM. Reason: Really shouldn't be quoting the article just above me, should I?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X