|
On January 10 2010 14:39 -fj. wrote:
In my opinion, money and statistics are a really shitty thing to have driving your life. Sure, maybe that only makes sense on a personal scale, but companies are made up of people, aren't they? I would much rather see something like blizzard releasing it's iron fist grip on their matchmaking service. No lan? Are you kidding me?
No one in this world is trying to make something good for those who want / need it, we are all to caught up in making something that someone will buy whether they need it or not, and in the digital realm, making something that must be bought to be used.
IMO, something as great as BW can only be replaced by a product produced to meet standards of excellence, not to sell well.
So I'm saying blizzard shouldn't make so much money. So what? It's their duty to do as they please, but It's not like making bank gets them or the people working for them anywhere. You can't buy happiness. The only thing it's good for is that it holds them together and gives them a common goal to work together towards: making a profitable game.
But it's not necessary, and I'd much rather see them working together to make an awesome game, as a "company" held together by the love of the art.
TL;DR fuck capitalism, lets make games because we want to
The problem here is that companies exist not for the purpose of creating art, but making money. Corporations have an ethical obligation to their stock holders to try to make as much money as possible. I'm with you that more businesses should start thinking about the bigger picture, but unfortunately that's not how Capitalism works. What we need to realize is that the only way we can get them to change is through the only thing that drives them, money. This is why a SUCCESSFUL boycott is often the only way for companies to start listening. The unfortunate part is that it's very difficult to actually get people to stick to a boycott of a product, especially something like a game... What Blizzard understands is that regardless of how they make this game, people will buy it, whether it be because of marketing or franchise interest. Unless there's some imminent threat of money not coming into their wallets, they're not likely to care tremendously about the opinions of the players. The only saving grace here is that for the most part, Blizzard developers seem themselves to be interested in making the sequel close to the original in feel so at least SOME of their interests and ours converge to a degree...
But yeah.. Capitalism sometimes sucks.. =/
|
If you're speaking about Capitalism/Corporations/Money etc. then perhaps the release of the Linux installer for SC2 could be treated as a way of advertising your company? Just a way of saying stuff like 'Hey! Look at us at Blizzard, we're so good that we can release our products on more platforms than others, isn't that just great and customer-friendly?'.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 11 2010 02:07 Manit0u wrote:
If you're speaking about Capitalism/Corporations/Money etc. then perhaps the release of the Linux installer for SC2 could be treated as a way of advertising your company? Just a way of saying stuff like 'Hey! Look at us at Blizzard, we're so good that we can release our products on more platforms than others, isn't that just great and customer-friendly?'.
It would probably take less dev-time, and get them more good PR if they put LAN support back in. Really, if they want to come off as customer-friendly, they'd be better off doing something that affects a wider range of people.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
MAC is NOT based on Linux architecture. They are both based on UNIX, but are quite different.
|
On January 10 2010 14:39 -fj. wrote:
So I'm saying blizzard shouldn't make so much money.
You shouldn't make so much money, either. Start giving half your income to charity and live frugally, you greedy greedy man.
Oh, wait.
|
i have never used linux before :/ and i dont know anyone that does... i think blizzard wont invest into an OS that not many gamers use
|
I use linux and while I would be happy if blizzard ported starcraft for linux I understand why they won't, and won't be begging them to do it. They do whatever they want. As much as I wouldn't like someone coming to me and telling me what to do,
I won't be telling blizzard what to do. They know what they want, they know there's linux users out there, but it's too small of a market for them. If it ever becomes cost-efficient for them to port to linux, they will. No silly online petition is going to change their financing.
|
I know several gamers who will not play games unless they run well under linux, actually, just in this building there is 2 of those. so there is to a certain degree loss of customers by not making a linux version.
Also, most dont know, but there was made a linux-installer for starcraft and wc3 which worked really well, I think it was called battlecraft or something like that. Anyways, Blizzard for some reason sued, or threatened to sue, the ones making the installer, and that was the end of it. (It made no sense to me, since you would anyways need the cd-key to install.)
If there is a OpenGL version I dont see any reason why there wouldnt be anyone making a linux-installer of it, or that it would run so well under wine that it would not be needed. If there comes a linux-installer now, lets just hope Blizzard wont do the same stupid thing again.
|
On January 11 2010 05:45 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2010 02:07 Manit0u wrote:
If you're speaking about Capitalism/Corporations/Money etc. then perhaps the release of the Linux installer for SC2 could be treated as a way of advertising your company? Just a way of saying stuff like 'Hey! Look at us at Blizzard, we're so good that we can release our products on more platforms than others, isn't that just great and customer-friendly?'. It would probably take less dev-time, and get them more good PR if they put LAN support back in. Really, if they want to come off as customer-friendly, they'd be better off doing something that affects a wider range of people.
I was under the impression that LAN support is not in not because of lack of dev time, but to fight pirates?
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 20 2010 10:23 RogerRus wrote:
Also, most dont know, but there was made a linux-installer for starcraft and wc3 which worked really well, I think it was called battlecraft or something like that. Anyways, Blizzard for some reason sued, or threatened to sue, the ones making the installer, and that was the end of it. (It made no sense to me, since you would anyways need the cd-key to install.)
If you're referring to Freecraft, the project was allowed to continue. They just had to change the name (it became Stratagus) because Freecraft supposedly would cause name-confusion with Blizzard franchises. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft ports exist for Stratagus, but it's hardly a straight port. It basically takes the art and sound assets from Warcraft 2 and Starcraft and puts the in a new engine. The actual gameplay feels entirely different.
|
On January 20 2010 10:50 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2010 05:45 TheYango wrote:On January 11 2010 02:07 Manit0u wrote:
If you're speaking about Capitalism/Corporations/Money etc. then perhaps the release of the Linux installer for SC2 could be treated as a way of advertising your company? Just a way of saying stuff like 'Hey! Look at us at Blizzard, we're so good that we can release our products on more platforms than others, isn't that just great and customer-friendly?'. It would probably take less dev-time, and get them more good PR if they put LAN support back in. Really, if they want to come off as customer-friendly, they'd be better off doing something that affects a wider range of people. I was under the impression that LAN support is not in not because of lack of dev time, but to fight pirates?
That is exactly the reason.
|
It is true that you will loose a few potential customers by not makeing a linux version, but you need do conider 2 things.
1) How many Linux users would not purchase a PC or Mac version of the game if a Linux version is unavailable. The number of Linux users who conisder themselves gamers who don't (or would not) use a windows or mac OS for gaming is very very small. If a customer has both Linux and windows then there is no net loss for forcing them to play on their windows os.
2) Is the number of Linux users who will not purchase SC2 for Windows or Mac but would purchase SC2 for Linux enough to result in breaking even or a profit for the time and expense of investing in a Linux version?
There is no way in hell they can justify the costs associated with it.
|
Yes as long as it doesn't delay the Windows release of SC2. Windows should be first priority, and later a Linux version would be great for Linux users, but it seems like a lot of extra programming for Blizzard.
|
8751 Posts
On January 11 2010 00:39 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 14:39 -fj. wrote:
In my opinion, money and statistics are a really shitty thing to have driving your life. Sure, maybe that only makes sense on a personal scale, but companies are made up of people, aren't they? I would much rather see something like blizzard releasing it's iron fist grip on their matchmaking service. No lan? Are you kidding me?
No one in this world is trying to make something good for those who want / need it, we are all to caught up in making something that someone will buy whether they need it or not, and in the digital realm, making something that must be bought to be used.
IMO, something as great as BW can only be replaced by a product produced to meet standards of excellence, not to sell well.
So I'm saying blizzard shouldn't make so much money. So what? It's their duty to do as they please, but It's not like making bank gets them or the people working for them anywhere. You can't buy happiness. The only thing it's good for is that it holds them together and gives them a common goal to work together towards: making a profitable game.
But it's not necessary, and I'd much rather see them working together to make an awesome game, as a "company" held together by the love of the art.
TL;DR fuck capitalism, lets make games because we want to
The problem here is that companies exist not for the purpose of creating art, but making money. Corporations have an ethical obligation to their stock holders to try to make as much money as possible. I'm with you that more businesses should start thinking about the bigger picture, but unfortunately that's not how Capitalism works. What we need to realize is that the only way we can get them to change is through the only thing that drives them, money. This is why a SUCCESSFUL boycott is often the only way for companies to start listening. The unfortunate part is that it's very difficult to actually get people to stick to a boycott of a product, especially something like a game... What Blizzard understands is that regardless of how they make this game, people will buy it, whether it be because of marketing or franchise interest. Unless there's some imminent threat of money not coming into their wallets, they're not likely to care tremendously about the opinions of the players. The only saving grace here is that for the most part, Blizzard developers seem themselves to be interested in making the sequel close to the original in feel so at least SOME of their interests and ours converge to a degree... But yeah.. Capitalism sometimes sucks.. =/
I don't think the threat has to be imminent. If everyone buys the game and both casual and competitive players stop playing it by 2013, Blizzard is gonna be hurt by it. Sure they snagged amazing sales numbers during those first two years, when every PC gamer with any common sense bought a copy, but their reputation will be injured. Every time customers aren't highly satisfied with a release, the chance that the next release will be successfully boycotted goes up. It is definitely in the long term interest of a company to keep its fans happy and its potential fans interested.
But of course they are going to push the limit of that happiness. Gamers will just have to pick their battles because it's symmetrically in the gamers' best interest for the companies to be happy. Taking extreme measures like not buying a game that you know you'd be happy playing just because there could've been something different about the game that'd make you even happier is definitely not a good move.
|
I like the OS that requires me to do 10000000 loopdy loops to do something that takes one click of a button in windows. I say let Linux do server shit and leave it be. Linux should not be your main OS for playing games and such.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Do you know how much it costs to develop a game for another system/platform? Do you really think from a business/development standpoint that it is really in blizzard's interests to develop for linux? Yes they have a lot of money for development, but that is a result of making SMART decisions....Do people use Linux for games in general? It's a pretty easy situation 0_o. How many of their programmers have experience developing games for linux? Obviously theres some nuances that would have to be overcome. Is it REALLY worth the time/risk/money? No.
|
On January 11 2010 06:28 BluzMan wrote:
MAC is NOT based on Linux architecture. They are both based on UNIX, but are quite different.
THIS, EVERYONE!
Also, it's a pain to bring a god damn big game coded intentionally in DX to OpenGL. Not to mention their QA is of very high standard. It's a bigger pain to match the functionality and timing for every platform as well as maintenance of having different platforms with very likely different internal coding(from matching the functionalities) if a bug concerning the engine was found. The only way you're gonna have a Linux version is if they intended for it from the beginning and is already planned in the design documents.
I
don't
want
Blizzard's
quality
to
drop.
Since you're already so willingly to "be cool" by installing Linux by yourself, I'm sure doing a dual boot shouldn't be a problem for you. ಠ_ಠ
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On January 20 2010 13:30 Aerox wrote:
Since you're already so willingly to "be cool" by installing Linux by yourself, I'm sure doing a dual boot shouldn't be a problem for you. ಠ_ಠ
End of thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
