|
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.
|
who fucking cares?
sc, wc3, and wow... ALL THREE WORK 100% PERFECTLY WITH WINE IN OPENGL MODE
and sc2 will too.
so why is this relevant?
edit: I only have slackware 12 as my OS and i've played all three games perfectly for many years.
|
On February 09 2010 03:50 Catch]22 wrote:
Heh, implying that Win 7 is inferior to linux, lol'd.
As a somewhat computer able person if i had a choice to buy windows 7 or just download a linux and set it up i rather just not spend money on linux.
But linux fails in 1 thing compatiablity.If i play games alot imma get windows DirectX is far superior then OpenGL, OpenGL is weighted down by having too much compatiablity with older shit imo.
So basiclly without games i'd be a linux user if i really loved linux which i do not i would only have windows on as a "game loader"
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 09 2010 06:30 sfdrew wrote:
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.
I added this in an edit: an operating system is only as good as the software and drivers developed for it. No one uses an operating system just for the operating system--they use it for what they can do with it, and in the case that it doesn't do what they want, they're not going to use it (otherwise we'd all be using Plan 9). I have no doubt that support for Linux is going to grow over time, but that doesn't matter in the here and now. Blizzard has no reason to hop onto Linux when it's only going to really take full advantage of it's superiority in 10-20 years, especially since the game probably isn't expected to last that long.
That the fight is rigged doesn't matter. Just because the guy with his hands tied behind his back would win in a fair fight doesn't mean he'll win now. "Theoretical victory" is always irrelevant.
|
@Bluegoo
Well, no, actually they don't, and even if they did the point is that we shouldn't have to resort to emulators, virtual machines, and hack libraries to in order to play their games.
@Velr
I would be if it weren't for Blizzard. The only reason I have windows at all is because of Blizzard games. My finacee, many of my friends, and I use Linux as our regular desktop.
|
@TheYango
I saw your edit after I posted my reply so our reply-edit synergie got all screwed up.
I chose to make this a new post instead of an edit so this doesn't happen again.
|
All the linux users that I know fall into two categories:
1. Fairly computer aware middle aged adults who use linux over windows on computers that are pretty old (and can't run windows without going about as fast as a snail)
2. Hardcore linux users (generally young nerdy).
I'm not saying these are the only categories that linux users fall into, but the first category is rather unlikely to game, whereas the second group are usually knowledgeable enough to dual boot if they want to play games that badly.
just mai 2 centttt
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
As you said, you're a programmer so you know the kind of development costs to develop and provide QA for another platform. What percentage of people who have Linux installed at home dual boot? I have no idea but i would assume it's pretty high because of all the other apps that don't support linux. People constantly complain about this but it doesn't make sense from a business/development standpoint imo...at least right now.
|
Canada9720 Posts
for home machines, the vast majority of people dual booting are gamers. there are many many programmers who dont game, outside of puzzle / maze type games. to them windows is a joke, one they'd rather laugh at than with
|
@Kennigit
It might be too expensive to try and do a port now that so much of the code has already been written, but if they were to take a third platform into consideration at the start of a project it would be much easier. Blizzard has a track record of integrating OpenGL support for their games, and Linux supports OpenGL.
In many ways, these kinds of programs are like girlfriends and credit cards, if you have never had one, they are impossible to get, but once you have the offers never stop coming in. A few games have had official ports and there are games like world of goo, but if one major company like Blizzard would port over, it would cause all the other ones to move in as well for fear of losing market share.
You can't just consider the user base as it stands now because it will increase and more apps are ported over. If Blizzard, Itunes (Apple), and Adobe all ported over, it isn't unreasonable to assume a mass migration of users would switch away from Windows. A lot of people want to switch or on the borderline, but simply wont because they can't get their favorite apps. If one vendor switches over, it will start a reaction that will bring the others with it, because their competitors wont' want to lose those emigrant customers.
|
Or they would stay exectly where they are becuase they simply wouldn't just port over to try to comply with linux and just forgo windows.
This sounds like a linux fourm talk soon someone will say directX is pointless and openGL is better (even though it's clearly not for games esp if you're talking about new games comming out)
People who run linux and want to game ususally will run windows too they aren't loosing any kind of market i'd say the majority of hardcore linux only users don't play too many games and are just coders and business types or simply just use the internet for web surfing.
|
On February 09 2010 06:17 Velr wrote:
... 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...
Yes to each lone OS, yes to every combination of the big 3, and yes to OSes you probably haven't heard of.
There IS a world outside of Windows, and the view is a lot nicer on this side.
|
you make a lot of assumptions about how popular linux is. people really don't want to deal with it, they know windows, they use windows. you can cite the growing hype over linux, but the fact is anyone who uses linux currently has accepted that you aren't getting as much support as windows and are either dual booting, using a VM, or don't care.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On February 09 2010 06:56 sfdrew wrote:
@Kennigit
It might be too expensive to try and do a port now that so much of the code has already been written, but if they were to take a third platform into consideration at the start of a project it would be much easier. Blizzard has a track record of integrating OpenGL support for their games, and Linux supports OpenGL.
In many ways, these kinds of programs are like girlfriends and credit cards, if you have never had one, they are impossible to get, but once you have the offers never stop coming in. A few games have had official ports and there are games like world of goo, but if one major company like Blizzard would port over, it would cause all the other ones to move in as well for fear of losing market share.
You can't just consider the user base as it stands now because it will increase and more apps are ported over. If Blizzard, Itunes (Apple), and Adobe all ported over, it isn't unreasonable to assume a mass migration of users would switch away from Windows. A lot of people want to switch or on the borderline, but simply wont because they can't get their favorite apps. If one vendor switches over, it will start a reaction that will bring the others with it, because their competitors wont' want to lose those emigrant customers.
Right but do you think Blizzard is really willing to be the first to jump in? What you are suggesting is that it might become viable if all these circumstances existed...from a business standpoint, that sounds like a waste. I don't think you can compare the development time and cost of World of goo (like 4 guys) to SC2. If there is a need, for a product, someone will create it - you don't need SC2 on linux. Why? Because you have Windows too and that saves me tens of millions in development cost.
It's like, i complain that UFC costs 50$ every month, but the cost isn't going to go down. Why? Because im still willing to pay it. Modern Warfare 2 didn't have dedicated servers and had it's price jacked 10$ - but Activision didn't budge despite complaints. Why? Because 90% of those people still bought it and it grossed more than any movie last year.
Will Linux users simply not play Blizzard games because they aren't developed for Linux? No. I can predict pretty accurately that they will play with what they are given - so that justifies not investing in it.
|
@Kennigit
Then why develop for the Mac? The Mac market share is also really small and not all of them play games. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to only develop for Windows and make Mac users fend for themselves by using parallels or dual-booting? According to your logic, nobody would develop for any OS except Windows because of the market share.
Blizzard was one of the first game companies to port to Mac, so it isn't unreasonable to assume they could be one of the first major game companies to port to Linux, is it? They were willing to help grow the market share for Mac, so why not Linux? The market share/not worth it argument isn't good enough by itself, clearly they didn't have a problem with this in the past.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Because the mac market as a consumer market is a monster compared to linux? The Blizzard from 1995 is vastly different from the Activision Blizzard of 2010....
If you run a mac, i can say with a fair degree of certainty that you don't run windows. Therefore i should develop for that platform based on how many people use it. If you run Linux theres a very good chance that you are either dual booting or have a mac/PC on the side. Therefore it is not worth the development cost. I mean i don't know why you are arguing, smarter guys than myself with MBAs at Activision/Blizzard obviously see this logic or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If it is a viable market then you will see a product on it. Blizzard has shown interest in developing for consoles because it is a viable market. Linux is not.
|
@Kennigit, on top of that and already mentioned several times in this thread is that Linux users have a fairly easy time running games via WINE. As stated before Blizzard games already run very well in Linux, there is no need to get them developed especially for the platform.
|
Points taken, although I doubt there will ever be any agreement on this one.
It's funny to me though, that Blizzard cares so much about the quality of the products they produce, but don't care at all about the quality of the platforms they release for. They clearly don't care about their customers either.
|
Calgary25969 Posts
|
|
|
From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of five years, you can extract the long and medium-term trends of operating system usage.
that's not biased at all!
|
Less than 1%, since that is all linux users combined, including the ones who don't play games.
|
There really isn't any way to know how many people are using what OS other than by sales and browser statistics, both of which are going to be skewed. I am, for example, using Windows at work right now but I am almost completely a dedicated Linux user. Every computer I buy puts another tally up for sales, and every time I browse at work it adds a mark for browser statistics, but that incorrectly shows me as a Windows user when I am not.
You also have to take into account all the people using more than one. If using an OS were a set, then what are the intersections of those sets, and the unions as well? How many people share the same computer?
Linux is the most likely of the three to get discounted when people are actually using it so I wouldn't be surprised if the real number were much higher than 1%
Besides, even if the real market for the games was 1/3 of 1%, that is still 1 million people, and at $50 a game that is more than enough to make the port and keep your customers happy.
|
Afaik, the only developer currently supporting Linux would be id. And only with their upcoming game Rage. And it doesn't even sound 100% sure that they are going to port.
|
On February 09 2010 06:33 bluegoo wrote:
who fucking cares?
sc, wc3, and wow... ALL THREE WORK 100% PERFECTLY WITH WINE IN OPENGL MODE
and sc2 will too.
so why is this relevant?
edit: I only have slackware 12 as my OS and i've played all three games perfectly for many years.
The second line is a doozey lol
|
Mac is completely different from linux, not only because of its market share being higher than linux, but linux have no support at all. for instance, most drivers are written by common users and there is almost 0 support from the distro companies.
Mac is all developed by Apple and they give support and everything needed to make OS X viable and all drivers are written by Apple... there is a BIG company behind Mac, what about linux? a community of developers who can do some code in their free times... lol
also Mac users are completely different from Linux users. they are "modern" people while Linux users are happy playing a video file from the command line lol
Mac users are potential customers for everything. they are looking for something new, with quality, with a good user interface and will pay a lot for it.
targeting one distro is a completely insane idea, no offense.
first of all, you can't guarantee that one distro will remain forever. then you become too dependent of one distro, which means, they have some power over you... also you are putting all your hard job and investment in someone else hands.
and for last, its probably against the law.
Linux is not viable atm, its sad, but true.
|
I still don't get what Linux does that windows doesn't do better... I've never had a problem with the OS that EVERYTHING works on.. and ultimately is built for..
|
On February 09 2010 06:17 Velr wrote:
... 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...
Nice to meet you sir. I have 2 computers at home and none of tham has anything but Linux on it (that's since last year, before that I was a Windows user but after a couple months on Linux I decided to switch entirely).
On February 09 2010 08:54 ilbh wrote:
Mac is completely different from linux, not only because of its market share being higher than linux, but linux have no support at all. for instance, most drivers are written by common users and there is almost 0 support from the distro companies.
Mac is all developed by Apple and they give support and everything needed to make OS X viable and all drivers are written by Apple... there is a BIG company behind Mac, what about linux? a community of developers who can do some code in their free times... lol
also Mac users are completely different from Linux users. they are "modern" people while Linux users are happy playing a video file from the command line lol
Mac users are potential customers for everything. they are looking for something new, with quality, with a good user interface and will pay a lot for it.
targeting one distro is a completely insane idea, no offense.
first of all, you can't guarantee that one distro will remain forever. then you become too dependent of one distro, which means, they have some power over you... also you are putting all your hard job and investment in someone else hands.
and for last, its probably against the law.
Linux is not viable atm, its sad, but true.
Linux having no support? My nVidia graphic card and its drivers would like to disagree with you...
BIG company behind Mac? Behind my openSUSE stands Novell, apparently an unknown company that has nothing to do with computers whatsoever...
Behind Ubuntu there's Canonical, they seem pretty wealthy seeing as they're shipping the OS dvd's worldwide for free...
Haha, Mac users being "modern" is going a bit over the line here. How are they modern? By eating all the shit Steve Jobs throws at them? How are they more modern than Windows or Linux users? OS X is just a dumbed down version of Linux.
And different Linux distros still have the same or very similar core so it's not really a big deal to release a product that works on all of them (take HoN for example).
Linux is viable.
On February 09 2010 09:03 ErOs_HalO wrote:
I still don't get what Linux does that windows doesn't do better... I've never had a problem with the OS that EVERYTHING works on.. and ultimately is built for..
Customization, security, control, networking. Just some of the stuff Linux does better than Windows. The only thing Windows is better at is the number of games being released for it and Visual Studio working on it and not working under Linux (no big deal here). Hell, I could even get Internet Explorer to work on my Linux if I needed it.
|
|
|
Free products typically aren't commercially viable
|
On February 09 2010 08:54 ilbh wrote:
Mac is completely different from linux, not only because of its market share being higher than linux, but linux have no support at all. for instance, most drivers are written by common users and there is almost 0 support from the distro companies.
What, you mean like Intel and Nvidia? Since they make up the majority of processors, graphics cards, and internal hardware, esp on laptops, I didn't realize their official drivers were written by common users with 0 support?
Mac is all developed by Apple and they give support and everything needed to make OS X viable and all drivers are written by Apple... there is a BIG company behind Mac, what about linux? a community of developers who can do some code in their free times... lol
What, you mean like Red Hat, Novell, Google, and IBM? All of whom have profits in the millions, at least.
also Mac users are completely different from Linux users. they are "modern" people while Linux users are happy playing a video file from the command line lol
Mac users are potential customers for everything. they are looking for something new, with quality, with a good user interface and will pay a lot for it.
This is too stupid to argue against.
targeting one distro is a completely insane idea, no offense.
first of all, you can't guarantee that one distro will remain forever. then you become too dependent of one distro, which means, they have some power over you... also you are putting all your hard job and investment in someone else hands.
and for last, its probably against the law.
This is the cherry on the sundae!
What, you mean like the way people trust MS and Apple and give them power everyday?! Illegal? You must be either insane or joking.
Linux is not viable atm, its sad, but true.
And your an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.
|
On February 09 2010 09:03 ErOs_HalO wrote:
I still don't get what Linux does that windows doesn't do better... I've never had a problem with the OS that EVERYTHING works on.. and ultimately is built for..
After switching from Windows to Linux last year, the only thing that Windows does better from what I use are games and tax software. Everything else so far has been relatively equal or better in Linux. And wine runs diablo 2 and starcraft, so I'm pretty good on the games front also.
|
When will people understand? Not everything released for Linux has to be free (or even open source for that matter). The only thing blocking it for commercial use is small user base compared to Windows (which I believe is pirated so much that the real market share on that should be cut by 1/3-rd at least).
|
On February 09 2010 06:36 sfdrew wrote:
@Bluegoo
Well, no, actually they don't, and even if they did the point is that we shouldn't have to resort to emulators, virtual machines, and hack libraries to in order to play their games.
you can't tell me they don't ROFL
I FUCKING PLAY SC and WC3 ON SLACKWARE WITH WINE....like RIGHT NOW...and for a long time.
roflrofl
and yes we do need to resort to that because we are less than 1% of the market using an os for nerds and we tend to be more savvy anyway so its not hard to use emulator (not to mention any retard can use WinE)
|
On February 09 2010 08:05 Chuiu wrote:
Afaik, the only developer currently supporting Linux would be id. And only with their upcoming game Rage. And it doesn't even sound 100% sure that they are going to port.
S2 releases all of their games for 3 platforms (Windows, OSX, Linux). But that really doesn't matter, what does matter is that most Linux users don't give a shit about it.
I would be really happy if Blizzard would release native ports of their games but if they won't I'm not going to cry about it. Personally, I really don't care if they will do that or not as it's not going to affect me in any way (if SC2 isn't going to work under WINE I simply won't buy it).
What Linux really needs is another company like Loki who made contracts with original game developers and released Linux ports for it (I have their Alpha Centauri).
From their web page:
For Linux users, Loki brings best selling games, fully supported and sold through traditional retail channels -- something the Linux community has been lacking until now. We are very proud of our commitment to Linux, and are excited about bringing a rich gaming experience to our platform of choice.
Unfortunately, they disappeared somewhere around 2002 (went bankrupt due to bad marketing) and stopped maintaining the games that were already released (and with the fast developing kernel, some of them were really hard to get working but, thankfuly, there's quite a lot of experienced people out there who made proper scripts and what not to make this old software work on modern systems).
THAT is what Linux needs, not the sudden change of mindset in major gaming industry giants. We need a small company that would take their products (through a contract, not steal it) and port it to Linux. I don't think any of the big companies would have anything against it either, seeing as this market is rather small, it would be a way for them to advertise/reach out to it without all the fuss about developing/maintaining code for different platform.
|
On February 09 2010 09:14 sfdrew wrote:
What, you mean like Intel and Nvidia? Since they make up the majority of processors, graphics cards, and internal hardware, esp on laptops, I didn't realize their official drivers were written by common users with 0 support?
yes, intel and nvidia.
What, you mean like Red Hat, Novell, Google, and IBM? All of whom have profits in the millions, at least.
ibm? novell? do you really think they have the same investiment/dedication for their distros than microsoft for windows and apple for their OS?
MILLION IN PROFITS WITH LINUX?! WOOWW
oh yeah, IBM dropped his database infrastructure to dedicate to linux!! LAWL
google? why google??
Show nested quote +
also Mac users are completely different from Linux users. they are "modern" people while Linux users are happy playing a video file from the command line lol
Mac users are potential customers for everything. they are looking for something new, with quality, with a good user interface and will pay a lot for it.
This is too stupid to argue against.
no, its not stupid. linux users dont buy anything. all linux distros comes with lots of command line tools, graphical tools, all for free and they are all happy with it.
Show nested quote +
targeting one distro is a completely insane idea, no offense.
first of all, you can't guarantee that one distro will remain forever. then you become too dependent of one distro, which means, they have some power over you... also you are putting all your hard job and investment in someone else hands.
and for last, its probably against the law.
This is the cherry on the sundae! What, you mean like the way people trust MS and Apple and give them power everyday?! Illegal? You must be either insane or joking.
I mean, Blizzard will NEVER become dependent of any linux Distro or linux company, that would be really dumb.
It can be legal, but thats not the main argument here...
And your an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.
yes, I am the idiot here. I am the programmer who thinks that porting 2 decades of software development to another platform is like changing the TV channel.
its so viable, that there is a linux version for all blizzard games
haha
grow up, its not that blizzard is forcing you to buy windows... omg
OH BTW, MAC OS IS NOT A THUMBED VERSION OF LINUX, ITS AN ENHANCED VERSION OF UNIX. OS IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANY LINUX DISTRO.*
* thats my opinion, please, dont start discussing which one is better... lol
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 09 2010 12:20 ilbh wrote:
yes, intel and nvidia.
Last I checked, their proprietary drivers are written by in-house programmers. How would they hold rights to the source if the source didn't belong to them?
On February 09 2010 12:20 ilbh wrote:
no, its not stupid. linux users dont buy anything. all linux distros comes with lots of command line tools, graphical tools, all for free and they are all happy with it.
So free = backwards and un-modern?
You could twist your statement around and say that Linux users have better discretion when it comes to their money, while Mac users are willing to pay top dollar for features that are largely irrelevant. It would be just as wrong as the original statement. Honestly, generalizing about peoples' attitudes based on their OS preference is beyond retarded.
Linux is not viable atm, its sad, but true.
Actually, it depends on what you mean by viable? As a general-use platform for people with certain needs from their operating system? Yes. As a target audience for a big-budget video game that needs a large return to break even with its investment? Certainly not.
|
On February 09 2010 12:29 TheYango wrote:Last I checked, their proprietary drivers are written by in-house programmers. How would they hold rights to the source if the source didn't belong to them? Show nested quote +On February 09 2010 12:20 ilbh wrote:
no, its not stupid. linux users dont buy anything. all linux distros comes with lots of command line tools, graphical tools, all for free and they are all happy with it. So free = backwards and un-modern? You could twist your statement around and say that Linux users have better discretion when it comes to their money, while Mac users are willing to pay top dollar for features that are largely irrelevant. It would be just as wrong as the original statement. Honestly, generalizing about peoples' attitudes based on their OS preference is beyond retarded. Actually, it depends on what you mean by viable? As a general-use platform for people with certain needs from their operating system? Yes. As a target audience for a big-budget video game that needs a large return to break even with its investment? Certainly not.
viable to port their games to linux.
its not
I based on facts, not on personal preference or attitude. 99% of linux users don't buy a single software.
if you are a linux user, please, tell me how many softwares have you bought for your linux?
not even your distro is bought.
|
Red hat made 28 million on Linux alone last year, and the reason I said Google, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, is that they are planning on releasing an OS using the Linux kernel called Chrome.
All the big players except for Microsoft, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't either and just kept it under wraps, use it. It powers the internet. It powers most of the worlds stock exchanges and makes the one laptop per child program possible.
The reason why most Linux users don't buy a lot of software is because of two reasons.
1. most software you could want or need, and I do emphisis most is available for free (speech and beer)
2. there isn't a lot of software to buy. You can't buy what isn't for sale, but then again that was the whole point of this thread. Despite the fact that I have bought several copies of SC in the past I just recently bought a download copy the other week because I lost my discs and cd-keys. SC is easy to pirate these days, but I paid anyways, and I would be happy to pay for a Linux version of SC2.
Trying to paint Linux users as pirates is just plain wrong and insulting. Why don't you go spout some of your BS to all the windows users who hang out on the pirates bay and fill their Windows machines with viruses.
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 09 2010 12:31 ilbh wrote:
if you are a linux user, please, tell me how many softwares have you bought for your linux?
not even your distro is bought.
What does that have to do with anything? Lack of purchases made on Linux has primarily to do with the fact that there are few things to purchase for Linux, not because of some mentality against buying things. The only proprietary software I've bought for Linux was a license for Mathematica, but I still buy my games and other software for Windows.
In relation to Starcraft 2, you seem to be of the thinking that it won't affect Blizzard's revenue because most Linux users who care wouldn't buy it anyway. IMO, it has more to do with the fact that most Linux users who care WOULD buy it anyway.
|
If I posted in the original thread I'm sure it was with a different tone than this, but the way I look at things has changed a bit. At the time I would have mentioned using Linux to take advantage of open source, to change what I didn't like. Well, it took time. And every upgrade I had to redo the change. It was a time sink for marginal gains. I get just as much flexibility out of Litestep (which I used and loved before trying Linux for 4 years).
I can't tell anyone what to do with his time, but you are wasting it with Linux. After those 4 years I realized how much time I was spending keeping it working. And it never gets better.
KDE 4.3 is starting to look nice, but 3.5 was nice years ago. Then they threw it out and started almost from scratch. Same with lots of other stuff. OSS worked (but sucked), then came ALSA and now PulseAudio. Dev got replaced by devfs then udev and now it looks like something like devfs is coming back. Supermount got replaced by hotplug and it is getting replaced by policykit.
nVidia graphics are nice but closed. But they work by reimplementing large areas of the stack. Until very recently, ATI/Intel graphics had no OpenGL 2+, no memory management, and sucked. They have been working on adding that stuff for years.
Things never just improve, they get replaced. And it takes years and though the end result might be better, in the meantime the rest of the software world has made actual substantial progress in comparison. Linux just gets behind.
Ubuntu was the hot new thing, but the more it evolves away from Debian the more it breaks. Multiple projects that based themselves on Ubuntu are going (back) to basing themselves on Debian (yay deb is my fave. if I had to use Linux). Which means either rolling release (constant upkeep) or waiting forever for the next stable version. Or one could try Fedora where occasionally boneheaded things like allowing users to install system wide software without password happen. Or Suse and deal with an inferior .net rewrite powering many of the apps. Or gentoo and waste time compiling stuff when someone else could do it for you. Or one of a million other distros.
I enjoyed my years with Linux on the desktop (until the end) but they were a colossal waste of time. It is quite nice using Windows (and Litestep!) again. And any programs I really care about I can continue to use (xTerm, Open Office, even KDE) without needing a constantly shifting, unsupported platform to run them on.
And yeah, all the people puttin their time in for free do a good job, considering it is a hobby. considering. For the marginal state everything is in that's a good excuse but it doesn't change the outcome. I don't feel like dealing with it anymore. You do of course, and I hope for your sake SC2 works natively on Linux someday (it won't). At least there's WINE.
|
The reason is purely economical, and entirely reasonable and expected.
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.
Blizzard is not telling you that you have to pay to use a 'worse' OS. Blizzard is making a game for those who have paid and those who are content with paying for Windows. For those who don't have Windows and unwilling to buy Windows, Blizzard simply does not want you money. Why? Because the revenue earned from those who do not use Windows and Apple do not cover the R&D cost of porting.
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.
Blizzard is not helping to further MS's monopoly, it's a symbiotic relationship at worst; in fact, I could say Blizzard is leeching off of MS's established monopoly. If Blizzard did not make games for Windows, guess what, most people would not play Blizzard games.
|
On February 09 2010 13:29 sfdrew wrote:
Red hat made 28 million on Linux alone last year, and the reason I said Google, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, is that they are planning on releasing an OS using the Linux kernel called Chrome.
All the big players except for Microsoft, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't either and just kept it under wraps, use it. It powers the internet. It powers most of the worlds stock exchanges and makes the one laptop per child program possible.
The reason why most Linux users don't buy a lot of software is because of two reasons.
1. most software you could want or need, and I do emphisis most is available for free (speech and beer)
2. there isn't a lot of software to buy. You can't buy what isn't for sale, but then again that was the whole point of this thread. Despite the fact that I have bought several copies of SC in the past I just recently bought a download copy the other week because I lost my discs and cd-keys. SC is easy to pirate these days, but I paid anyways, and I would be happy to pay for a Linux version of SC2.
Trying to paint Linux users as pirates is just plain wrong and insulting. Why don't you go spout some of your BS to all the windows users who hang out on the pirates bay and fill their Windows machines with viruses.
I'm not saying they use pirate software, just said they have all they need coming with their distro.
end-user customer market for linux is almost non existent. money making from linux is all about hosting services, networking services, etc., all services provided to companies, not end users
which makes linux not viable.
of course there are some people like you that would pay for a SC2 for linux, but how many linux users are also a gamer? maybe 0.000000001% of the entire market? is it viable to make SC2 for linux just to satisfy those people?
|
On February 09 2010 13:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2010 12:31 ilbh wrote:
if you are a linux user, please, tell me how many softwares have you bought for your linux?
not even your distro is bought.
What does that have to do with anything? Lack of purchases made on Linux has primarily to do with the fact that there are few things to purchase for Linux, not because of some mentality against buying things. The only proprietary software I've bought for Linux was a license for Mathematica, but I still buy my games and other software for Windows. In relation to Starcraft 2, you seem to be of the thinking that it won't affect Blizzard's revenue because most Linux users who care wouldn't buy it anyway. IMO, it has more to do with the fact that most Linux users who care WOULD buy it anyway.
yes but linux users who wants to play SC2 can be counted in your fingers.
thats what im talking about...
|
There's a lot more than you would think ilbh. Which still doesn't change anything. Like I mentioned previously, what should be done is some 3rd party porting the games to Linux.
|
if i had my way i would make a linux version before a mac version and i'm sure many people would do the same...but it would be utterly moronic for a business to appeal specifically to linux users. Sorry.
|
On February 09 2010 15:52 ilbh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2010 13:29 sfdrew wrote:
Red hat made 28 million on Linux alone last year, and the reason I said Google, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, is that they are planning on releasing an OS using the Linux kernel called Chrome.
All the big players except for Microsoft, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't either and just kept it under wraps, use it. It powers the internet. It powers most of the worlds stock exchanges and makes the one laptop per child program possible.
The reason why most Linux users don't buy a lot of software is because of two reasons.
1. most software you could want or need, and I do emphisis most is available for free (speech and beer)
2. there isn't a lot of software to buy. You can't buy what isn't for sale, but then again that was the whole point of this thread. Despite the fact that I have bought several copies of SC in the past I just recently bought a download copy the other week because I lost my discs and cd-keys. SC is easy to pirate these days, but I paid anyways, and I would be happy to pay for a Linux version of SC2.
Trying to paint Linux users as pirates is just plain wrong and insulting. Why don't you go spout some of your BS to all the windows users who hang out on the pirates bay and fill their Windows machines with viruses. I'm not saying they use pirate software, just said they have all they need coming with their distro. end-user customer market for linux is almost non existent. money making from linux is all about hosting services, networking services, etc., all services provided to companies, not end users which makes linux not viable. of course there are some people like you that would pay for a SC2 for linux, but how many linux users are also a gamer? maybe 0.000000001% of the entire market? is it viable to make SC2 for linux just to satisfy those people?
What you said, is in general, the open source model for making money, but games are usually not open source. I not only wouldn't expect Blizzard to open source their games, but I wouldn't want them to either.
There aren't a lot of companies who make money off closed source software for Linux, but there are some. People keep complaining about the market share, but more users won't come over until more programs are available.
I think that porting over is a smart idea, because unlike the Mac market, the Linux market has nowhere to go but up. The Mac market is limited by their high prices and trendy image that will only ever appeal to so many people. The market share for Linux is growing faster than either MS or Mac and there are probably a lot of people who use it sometimes, but still keep Win/Mac around for those programs they can't get.
The dogma that it isn't worth the cost is nonsense. How much do you think a port costs? Even if the market share is a little over 1%, which it is probably higher, that is a little over 3 million people. 3/4 of the population is either old or children and most of them aren't using Linux. I would be willing to bet the majority of Linux users are gamers, but they just play on other platforms because they don't' have a choice.
Lets be generous though and say the number of Blizzard gamers who will pay (and they are probably going to work harder this time to keep the pirates out on Bnet and since lan play is being removed, no more 'extra' servers like iccup) is only 15% of all Linux users, that is still 500k. Now lets be even more generous and pretend they only $5 off every customer, that is still 2.5 million dollars. You think you can't port a game you already have code for over to Linux for 2.5 million dollars!?
Trust me, you can. That kind of money will pay for a lot of developers salaries, and most of the hard work is already being done by their other departments.
|
As a linux-only user for the last decade, I have to say...give it up. Seriously. In the not-too-distant future, linux gaming will be more or less handheld or tablet-only. In fact, I would not be surprised if that is already the case.
I'd argue some more but a lot has been said in this thread and many, MANY other threads like it in many forums for nearly every major game release, ever. It's not going to happen.
|
On February 09 2010 07:04 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2010 06:17 Velr wrote:
... 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... Yes to each lone OS, yes to every combination of the big 3, and yes to OSes you probably haven't heard of. There IS a world outside of Windows, and the view is a lot nicer on this side.
And the majority of users/gamers DOES NOT CARE about it and every corporation that wastes money on some OS that a small minority uses is fucking retarded.
About 10 years ago a friend of mine was like:
"A few years and Linux will be so easy that everyone will want to use it."
The exact opposite happened, no one even remotely cares about it, outside of the programming nerds from back then and the ones that have grown after them, anymore.
The only thing i still see, since years, from Linux users are their tears cause of lacking game support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
