Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UT3 Linux Client Is "In The Works"

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by niniendowarrior View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by xav1r View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          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.
          Last edited by niniendowarrior; 07-16-2008, 07:34 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
            Heh... Unfortunately many do.

            Such as? Give some examples.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Chris View Post
                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?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Chris View Post
                          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.
                          Last edited by Svartalf; 07-16-2008, 02:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by Svartalf; 07-16-2008, 03:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Thetargos View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X