|
I just got done reading, the now closed, "Starcraft 2 on linux, why not?" thread and I wanted to share a response I got from a Blizzard technician as well as add some comments that I would have liked to have added to the old thread, if nobody minds.
My letter to them
Blizzard,
You are by far the highest quality gaming company in the world, setting the standards for innovation and style for well over a decade. You were an early adapter to the mac at a time when other companies didn't consider them to be a large enough market share to bother with.
As a programmer, gamer, and lover of all things Blizzard, I implore you to consider porting Starcraft II, and dare I say, future games over to the Linux platform. You are quite literally the only reason I still have a copy of Windows in my home, and it is a bittersweet relationship. You bring me the joys of World of Warcraft, Starcraft, and Warcraft III, but also drag me down into the depths of computer hell by forcing me to run an inferior operating system to play your games.
You have an opportunity to once again be a pioneer by being an early adopter to Linux. The technical needs can easily be meet with OpenGL and the Wine project, which Google used for their picassa port.
Thank you
{real name removed}
Reply from Blizzard
Thank you for the kind words. Unfortunately right now the Unix/Linux market is just too small to port over our games to that platform. Here's the copy and paste response, but I wanted to personally thank you for your kind words again. Just to add to the possibility, it's always there, and what I would do is post your thoughts to the suggestion forums, since the developers read those forums for ideas about upcoming patches and expansions to our games...
Blizzard currently does not develop for the Linux platform; however, we are keeping an eye on the progress of Linux and may change in the future. Currently we only support our games on the platforms listed on the box/website. There are some issues with Linux that may interfere with a connection to our servers as well. Overall, we do not support the use of our games on Linux.
This gives you a pretty good idea of what their position is atm, which is that nothing is planned right now, but they might consider it in the future and haven't ruled it out as a platform all together. The server argument seems like bull to me though since Linux is king among servers and networking, it's only the one thing it does best so I can't see what the trouble would be there.
Also, for all the people who posted in the other thread who made common complaints I just wanted to reply to those.
"The market is just too small"
First of all, nobody is in a position to say what the market share really is. Hundreds of millions of copies have no doubt been downloaded, copied, or otherwise transferred between computer owners.How many are being used on servers? How many for desktop? How many people dual boot? How many people use the same computer (i.e total users per copy)? Nobody knows, and it would almost impossible to find out.
Web statistics on OS and browser usage, however, do suggest a market share almost equal to Mac.
"Just dual boot or use a second machine, what is the big deal?"
The big deal is that Blizzard is essentially telling me that I have to PAY for and use and inferior operating system in order to play their games. I do, atm, dual boot to a windows partition to play Blizzard games, and only Blizzard games. It is bad enough that you are forced to buy a copy of Windows when you buy a computer, but this sort of game distribution only helps to further Microsoft's monopoly on the OS market, which its product does not deserve. Anybody who knows anything about Operating Systems knows what a piece of crap Windows has always been and probably always will be, why should I be subjected to waste perfectly good hard drive space, time, and energy to support a company that makes a product I don't' want to use just so I can use theirs? I do it because I dont' have a choice, but that doesn't make me a happy customer.
Apple does the same shit with Itunes and as a result I wont' be buying any more Ipod products in the future.
Imagine for a second, for all you Windows users, that Blizzard released SC2 exclusively on Linux. You would be pretty angry I imagine, and then when you wanted to get things changed, people just keep telling you "dual boot with Linux" and "what's the big deal just use a different computer with just Linux on it", and "Format your hard drive so you can install an OS you don't like so you can dual boot to play one game, what are you complaining about? jesus!"
"Linux users don't play games"
They don't play games because there aren't that many to play! The game manufacturers have to make the first move. Blizzard ported to Mac back when its market share was really low and people didn't play games on it, so why not now on Linux? More people would use Linux if the apps and games they wanted were ported over, is it so much to ask that the playing field be level?
"It is too technically difficult/not cost effective"
One thing to get out of the way, Linux is only the Kernel, not the whole OS. They could target one Distro, like other companies have started doing, namely Ubuntu, and then they would have a stable platform to work off of. Launchpad makes it easy to distribute updates and programs through the software center, and I'm sure a company as large as Blizzard can get special treatment. Ubuntu is becoming the mainstream distro which has potential to support he closed source programs which need to be ported over and Blizzard could be a huge step in the right direction for that. Nvidia already offers their drivers for their hardware for Linux, and so does Intel, which means that most people using Linux will have access to the same hardware support as Windows and Mac users. OpenGL does everything Blizzard needs and they usually do OpenGL support for their games anyways. If they just target one distro, then technical problems wont be a problem. They dont' have to support "Linux", they can just support "Ubuntu/other distro", which is becoming more and more popular these days.
|
I think it would be really sweet to have a native Linux port of SC2, however, I would be satisfied even if they didn't do it but SC2 would follow in the steps of their other games (BW, WC3, WoW) which work perfectly fine through WINE.
|
I need the battlenet to work through wine though without hours of hacking! 
|
United States3824 Posts
I wouldn't say inferior. Windows 7 is pretty cool. And before you call me a hater I'm going to go back after writing this to writing 2.4 Kernel modules  .
|
On February 09 2010 02:49 cgrinker wrote:I wouldn't say inferior. Windows 7 is pretty cool. And before you call me a hater I'm going to go back after writing this to writing 2.4 Kernel modules .
Why 2.4 when 2.6 is far superior?
|
I agree with Blizzard in that Linux users are not a large market.
It is not because Linux is a lesser OS than say apple (you mentioned they had equal desktop share?) But to say that linux users will offer less cash. As an user of tri-boot computer, I use linux to run my free linux-rip-off software. Linux might be a "large market," but not necessarily a "paying market." Blizzard probably see linux as a pirating nightmare, where people will take advantage of the free-versiltilty aspect, and avoid paying for the game. I think blizzard actually wants more legit StarcraftII cds sold rather than copied. (Just compare how many legit cd you have actually seen of BW) In addition, most Linux computers I know (outside my tri-boot MacBook pro) are really cheap, and probably don't have the GPU to run SC2. I own also own a linux desktop, not because it runs really cool graphics, but because it is insanely cheap ($200 with flat screen monitor). I feel most Linux computers on the market face this disability, and are therefor not likely candidates for SCII.
However, I support your issue about development. If Blizzard is going to develop for mac (OSX) then they are producing a unix operating game (Mac OSX is unix based). The only difference between, say, running openoffice on linux vs mac is having to go through the aqua© interface in OSX. So technically it should be easier (and cheaper with no aqua© copyright fees) to develop on Linux than Mac. (unless Jobs is subsidizing any development for his platform)
The final linux development nightmare comes from the wide diversity of Linux OSs. But I agree with you, that if Blizzard where to pick one (most likely Ubuntu) and go with it, part of this is simplified. However, Blizzard still risks upsetting other Linux user (say someone still running RedHat) by developing only for Debian-Linux; a no win situation for Blizzard.
So in conclusion, I agree with you: it is a bummer not being able to play SCII on my Linux comp. But I totally understand Bliz's reluctance to make the leap. It honestly would be a first. Maybe in 2 years (after SCII comes out... so like 2030) Blizzard will release a port to Linux. I might buy another copy just for the novelty of it.
|
I have my reasons for thinking it is inferior. I don't get a choice of file system formats, and given a choice I wouldn't pick ntfs, I'd pick something like zfs or ext4. No matter how hard they try, they can't seem to get security right, even though the *inx crowd has had it figured out for decades, especially when it comes to user security and file permissions. The registry, while it may have sounded like a good idea at some point, is a horrible "feature" and should have been removed a long time ago. It runs slowly, for almost no reason that I can tell. Driver support isn't what everybody thinks it is because the OEM's tweak and modify it to fit their computers. Just ask anybody who has had to do fresh installs how well vanilla Windows handles hardware. As an operating system, I can't find anything about it I like that almost all other options don't' do better. The only thing it has going for it is a monopoly on hardware vendors and application developers.
If people had a true choice, as in, you go to the store and you have to select the OS and buy it separate (even if a tech installs it), and all applications were available for all platforms, nobody would use it.
That, however, is my MS rant, and we are talking about SC. If Ubuntu continues to improve and the market share continues to increase, and more hardware vendors start playing ball, like Intell and Nvidia, they might just start porting games over.
|
United States3824 Posts
2.4 is what we are using for homework. The idea is that dealing with locking for multiprocessors and updating our lab assignments that were written for 2.2 would suck a lot.
|
Just use virtualbox for a Windows install, problem solved.
edit - also, are you angry at the government for forcing you to use a car on the interstate when you would prefer to jog?
|
On February 09 2010 02:26 sfdrew wrote:
The big deal is that Blizzard is essentially telling me that I have to PAY for and use and inferior operating system in order to play their games.
+
I do, atm, dual boot to a windows partition to play Blizzard games, and only Blizzard games.
YOU made the decision NOT to buy the platform that you KNEW would be supported. Why not complain that you have to buy a computer to run it, while you're at it?
They could target one Distro, like other companies have started doing, namely Ubuntu, and then they would have a stable platform to work off of.
Ubuntu is hardly stable, and becomes LESS so with each major release. Face it, Linux still isn't even ready to be a basic desktop platform, let alone a gaming platform.
|
Heh, implying that Win 7 is inferior to linux, lol'd.
|
Windows vs Linux arguments are so stupid. I dual boot but I keep finding myself booting into linux and putting in the extra work to get the 2-3 windows apps running in WINE just because I feel much more comfortable in the linux environment. But I could see how someone wouldn't think it's worth the payoff to learn how to make linux work since everything they are more comfortable/familiar with is easier to set up in Windows, although it absolutely is worth it for me.
There is this weird ego-driven need to believe that the choices that we make are also the best for everyone else and that someone who uses a different O/S (or plays a different game, or drives another car, or whatever) is just WRONG. My writing of this post is another variation of this since I want you all to develop my tolerant attitude, but whatever.
tl;dr: Linux vs Windows boils down to different strokes for different folks
|
Since Wine was conceived, I've seen its support for games improve tremendously. I've gotten BW, WoW, HL2, and TF2/Portal running under Wine.
Additionally, I think Eve Online still uses Cedega (essentially just Wine detail-configured for a particular game) to reach out to Linux users.
My guess is that Wine will have some issues with SC2 and the new BNet, but I'm pretty sure the Wine devs (or another concerned party) will grab this challenge by the horns and look for a solution.
There is also virtualization, but this typically takes a greater hit on performance for games.
A lot of the credit goes to the game developers for writing solid code that is reliant on the traditional resources for Windows game development (making it easier for Wine to support). A lot of programs won't run because there is no support for outlandish libraries until the Wine devs deem it worth their time to incorporate. I trust that SC2 will be another high caliber game from Blizzard that eventually sees a Gold rating at WineHQ.
|
Virtualbox and Wine work well enough, but there are resolution problems that are annoying to solve.
@Vedic
Ubuntu is hardly stable, and becomes LESS so with each major release. Face it, Linux still isn't even ready to be a basic desktop platform, let alone a gaming platform.
Ok, so name something about it that has degraded with the last release? Unstable compared to what, Windows? Don't make me laugh.
And while I'm at it, for all of you who think Windows is worth using at all, regardless of the price, name something good about it. I don't mean "I can use this app" or "I can play this game", I mean name something good about Windows the operating system? I have a feeling you either can't do it, or don't' know what you are talking about.
The only problems you are likely to run into is driver problems, but if you use the proper drives provided by the manufacturer (the ones that provide them) then most of those problems go away, but even then it isn't a problem with Linux, it is a problem with the hardware manufacturers who wont' write drivers for other platforms, just like lack of standard software and games is due to developers not writing it, not some fault of Linux, which, as an operating system kernel, is a lot more secure and efficient than anything MS has produced.
All the *inx shells are better than the dos environment, including their crappy "power shell".
The selection of window managers is an embarrassment of riches. You can opt for fast, lightweight, and efficient, or go with compiz and get mind-blowing effects that blow Win7 out of the water.
Seriously, what is it, specifically about Linux that is so bad, and about Windows that is so good?
|
United States3824 Posts
I think that there isn't enough of a market for Linux users who want the ease of access to programs in the same way that Windows users do. The argument that it is worth your time to put the effort into learning to use Linux in exchange for the increased control is completely fair. For those users they can use Wine.
However the users who would require the resources (ie support) that Blizzard has to provide for each platform would rather use Windows or Mac, because whether you want to call it market share, stupidity, distrust of open source, or ease of access, the majority of mainstream computer user make use of Windows or Mac.
That being said, there are plenty of layman computer users that use Ubuntu and plenty of skilled users that use Windows or Mac OSX. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with anyone's level of computer use as you the user have to learn how much time you are willing to invest in learning to use the particular interfaces. That is unless you use your CD Drive as a cup holder.
The fact of the matter is the people who are asking to get Linux support for their favorite programs are at a level that they could be using Wine. Furthermore I think that you need to look at the Wine community and ask yourself why the entry level of using Wine is so high. I am of the opinion that it is kept intentionally high because (and if you have met a Linux user you already know this) it feels pretty good to be able to get something like SC or WoW on a Linux box.
As a closing inflammatory statement, Solaris is the best Operating System. Where's the SC support for all of the people and Sun Microsystems?
|
On February 09 2010 05:00 cgrinker wrote:
Furthermore I think that you need to look at the Wine community and ask yourself why the entry level of using Wine is so high. I am of the opinion that it is kept intentionally high because (and if you have met a Linux user you already know this) it feels pretty good to be able to get something like SC or WoW on a Linux box.
Actually, Wine has gone a long way and right now, running Windows games on it is really simple. Even if you run into some problems (like the need for a certain version of .NET or Visual C++ runtimes) there's a lot of documentation/help available on the web and most of such problems are usually solved by the use of winetricks (it's really not that hard to type commands like 'sh winetricks dotnet20'). I can tell from my experience, that some things are even easier with Linux/WINE than Windows (especially getting older games to work and installing missing stuff).
The database and level of apps supported by WINE is growing and even if you see Gold/Silver rating on some games it probably means that this entries come from a long time ago. I've run into a couple games myself, which had Silver/Garbage rating in winehq and required some uber hard tricks to even launch the installer (that's what was said on winehq) but for me they were working smoothly (both the installation and gameplay) out of the box without any special options or additional work.
|
Solaris is pretty good, except for the fact that it is so slow (and what sun product isn't). Solaris proper isn't meant to be a desktop OS. OpenSolaris is open source and is almost completely compatible with Linux and POSIX. Gnome runs on it almost unaltered. A proper Linux port wouldn't keep people from Solaris from running it. Sun even takes extra measures to make sure Linux apps work seamlessly with Solaris
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/scla.jsp
Virtual machines are pointless for this kind of thing. If I wanted to actually run Windows, then I'll just dual boot and run Windows.
Wine is a nice attempt to correct a huge problem, but it shouldn't even be needed. Application developers greatly influence what OS people use. When servers and databases became available for Linux, most people jumped ship and now it enjoys a majority market share. If games did the same thing, I would expect to see a similar reaction.
Right now people are paying to get into a crappy, condemned, fire hazard of a shack in order to see big name stars while free tickets are available to the nicest stadium in the world, but nobody can convince the stars to perform there.
The, which OS is better argument is almost pointless because most people don't know enough to have an informed opinion and just use whatever came on their system or whatever they have to use to get their favorite programs.
Anybody who uses Windows and surfs the internet on IE deserves to have their identity stolen and their bank accounts emptied; they deserve to have their computer filled with viruses and their facebook profiles hijacked and their pictures and movies and music destroyed.
I'd love to see application developers pull their heads out of their asses, but it probably won't happen. In the mean time I guess we will have to keep putting up with this so that Blizzard can keep supporting the status quo of the ignorant public who buy MS products.
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/08/24/abandoning-windows-hospitals/
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 09 2010 02:26 sfdrew wrote:
Web statistics on OS and browser usage, however, do suggest a market share almost equal to Mac.
Uh, what? You're gonna have to cite something here. From my experience, combined Linux market share barely exceeds 1%, while Mac is above 5%. That's not "almost equal".
Also, you failed to recognize the difference between the Linux and Mac markets--the Linux user is essentially indoctrinated in having to deal with compatibility issues, it plagues his system. So while it might be annoying that there's no SC2 version for Linux, it won't actually affect Blizzard's revenue a large amount. Most Linux users who care enough about SC2 not to pirate it would be willing to go through the trouble to figure it out either on a dual-boot, or through WINE. It's not that Linux's market share is small, but that the marginal gain for developing on it is small.
On February 09 2010 04:14 sfdrew wrote:
Ok, so name something about it that has degraded with the last release? Unstable compared to what, Windows? Don't make me laugh.
Driver support is always unstable, for one. For example, my current computer's video card had official driver support in Ubuntu 8.10, and lost it in 8.14 and 9.10. Obviously this isn't Ubuntu's fault, but the open source alternative is inadequate (for example, I've had some issues with transparent textures not rendering correctly). Another example is the video issues that plagued Intel integrated graphics cards in 8.14 (can't remember if it got fixed in 9.10), which were so bad that some machines were incapable of playing mp4 video. And then there's PulseAudio, which could get a post of it's own (long story short, the Ubuntu devs made a huge mistake in adopting it as the standard before it was ready for the platform).
The thing is, in terms of hardware support, which is extremely relevant to gaming, it's actually true that Windows is more stable than Linux. This is because hardware developers go out of their way to ensure Windows compatibility. And given how much sound and graphics compatibility are necessary for a game like Starcraft 2, it makes sense that it would hurt prospects of developing on that platform.
On February 09 2010 04:14 sfdrew wrote:
The only problems you are likely to run into is driver problems, but if you use the proper drives provided by the manufacturer (the ones that provide them) then most of those problems go away, but even then it isn't a problem with Linux, it is a problem with the hardware manufacturers who wont' write drivers for other platforms, just like lack of standard software and games is due to developers not writing it, not some fault of Linux, which, as an operating system kernel, is a lot more secure and efficient than anything MS has produced.
That's like the old joke that Plan 9 is the best OS ever made, or that Chrome extensions are automatically on par with Firefox extensions. While theoretically it may be true, the fact that there is no practical development for it renders that moot. For practical purposes, a system is only as good as the software and drivers written for it. It has no relevance whatsoever that out-of-the-box Windows handles hardware worse than Linux, because no one will ever just be using out-of-the-box Windows. It doesn't matter that Windows is poorly designed in comparison to *nix. The fact that it's the standard remains the case.
|
... Does anyone actually know someone that only has Linux and no Windows or Mac?
Hell.. I don't even know a single guy that has only Mac-stuff...
|
This is because hardware developers go out of their way to ensure Windows compatibility.
That isn't an issue about Windows or Linux is it? That is an issue about the hardware vendors. The last year has brought about a lot of added support for Linux hardware from Nvidia and Intel. Claiming a victory because the fight has been rigged for a long time isn't fair. I asked for things that were unstable about the actual OS, not the hardware drivers that were being neglected by the manufacturers, which isn't even as much of a problem now as it used to be.
What is wrong with pulse audio? I hear people complain about it all the time but it has been fine for me. I was using Mandriva when Ubuntu added PA and it works great in Mandriva. I am using Ubuntu 9.10 now because I am working on a program I am going to distribute through Launchpad, and it hasn't given me any problems here either. I love the fine grain control I get over all the apps and devices and I can say that without tweaking it at all it has never crashed on me. I don't know what kinds of problems other people are having, but maybe I am just a lucky exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
