Prey

[arcturus]

Seems a number of people are pretty pissed at 3DRealms for not having a singleplayer port for linux.

http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16629

I suspect the game developers are going to be hearing alot more from the linux camp as it grows in popularity and Prey might just be the opening salvo. There's valid points on both sides but all the discussion should be moot once linux hits critical mass.

[1c3d0g]

This is what *I* do...

I vote with my wallet. Companies that don't support Linux won't get my cash, it's as simple as that. UT2k4 has a native Linux port, and that's why I gladly buy the full DVD version of that game. I do the same thing with iD Software's games (Doom 3, Quake 4 etc.). These companies somehow managed to make a Linux version of their excellent games, so why can't others? It's called laziness.

We as Linux users have a voice, and if we stand united towards a cause, nothing, and I do mean nothing, will get in our way. :-)

[James]

Prey really should have a Linux client since every other game based on the Doom 3 engine has had one.

[Shadewalker]

They started out with a very portable codebase (see Doom3, Quake4) and no doubt screwed it over completely, but as they're too ashamed to admit this fact, they cover themselves up with lies such as insufficient demand for a linux port.

[niniendowarrior]

I would normally be happy if companies release Linux clients... The 3D realms representative there (Joe Siegler) was at least kind enough to ask management if there is plan for one. I know Doom 3 and Quake 4 are portable codebase, but obviously the developers wanted only a Windows version, seeing that Linux doesn't have a big gamer base. I honestly think going to their forums, whinning and yapping about the lack of Linux support doesn't help anything, much less, irritate the company. They obviously don't want one, so camping out in the doorsteps only just makes matters worse.

And by the way, I didn't like the Prey demo.

[Shadewalker]

I know Doom 3 and Quake 4 are portable codebase, but obviously the developers wanted only a Windows version

I don't follow your reasoning here. How does wanting a window-only version make sense? You say the the codebase is portable, so there should only be profit in alternate OS port due to the next-to-none effort required. As I mentioned in my previous post, they must have done one thing another to make the code unportable but won't admit it.

[James]

All the paths must have been coded with back-slashes.

[niniendowarrior]

The way I see it, even though the codebases are portable to alternate OSes, the company needs to spend money, time, and resources to adjust the code and to make sure it's working on altenate OSes. And the way the company sees it, Linux gaming is a niche market that doesn't generate revenues to them. So, the cost of making sure a Linux port works is not compensated by the potential revenue that can be tapped from the Linux gaming community. Demand just isn't there.

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.

[arcturus]

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.

Actually it's the first recourse available to let a company know there's demand for their product, unless you have some better idea to suggest?

[Shadewalker]

The way I see it, even though the codebases are portable to alternate OSes, the company needs to spend money, time, and resources to adjust the code and to make sure it's working on altenate OSes. And the way the company sees it, Linux gaming is a niche market that doesn't generate revenues to them. So, the cost of making sure a Linux port works is not compensated by the potential revenue that can be tapped from the Linux gaming community. Demand just isn't there.

The post above was more about why I think making a thread pleading for a Linux port most likely won't work... because it's just going to annoy companies.

Your statement is a self-contradictory. A codebase being portable means exactly the opposite of what you say, about company needing to spend "money, time and resources". Portable implies that no adjustments are needed. If they were, the code wouldn't be portable.

Please explain how there would be no revenues with all the interest and no additional expenses for the company. Let me point out once again that this makes absolutely no sense at all. Something is completely wrong, and if you read my first post in this thread, you know what I'm hinting at.