Note: This is a really old article, if you're here, I do suggest you read this article "Why The Porting Method Doesn't Matter For Linux Games".
Thanks to the recent fiasco of The Witcher 2 I wanted to write down some thoughts on why we shouldn't accept bad quality ports from developers.
Only in recent years have we had so many damned games in our Linux libraries that you now see comments from Linux gamers like "I've got too many games already!" which I imagine now sounds familiar to a lot of you. We have never before seen so much attention from developers thanks to Valve & Steam.
Also thanks to the push from developers we are seeing ports come along that are quite frankly lazy or just downright buggy to the point of being unplayable for a majority of people.
The problem is if we keep accepting ports at a sub-par quality then Linux will gain a reputation for having low quality games. Think about that big picture for a moment, seriously.
Imagine if you will that AAA developers started pushing out more games for Linux using technology like this "eON" that was used to port The Witcher 2. Let's say we have a lot of them and it suddenly looks like Linux has a lot of big-name games. You then have plenty of people trying out Linux, and seeing that their games run with terrible performance on the exact same hardware giving them the impression that Linux itself is bad for gaming. That's not good for anyone.
I've seen many people say "the toolkit used to port doesn't matter?". That in my eyes is a very naive statement to make. Of course it matters, it can mean the difference of light and day in the quality of a game on Linux. Which directly goes back to my point above about the perception of Linux gaming.
You can still say the toolkit doesn't matter and use whatever comparison/analogy you fancy, but if the toolkit is the root cause of the issue, like it will be 99% of the time when we are talking about computer software then yes, it does of course matter.
I've seen comments now from other major websites stating we should just accept them and be thankful we have them at all. That is an idiotic statement from people who don't look at the bigger picture.
Think about the developers and publishers who will see it as acceptable to push terrible Linux ports out the door and call it a day with only profits in mind. The consumer perception of Linux gaming would worsen yet again with even more bad quality ports.
I am all for ports from developers, of course I am I run this site after-all. I as a customer however do not want to pay for games that would work on Windows, but run like a snail on Linux, why should I? Why should you?
Final added point: You should never attack a developer when they reach out to the community having issues, that's not acceptable. Feedback is fine, but name calling is childish and makes Linux again look bad. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Thanks to the recent fiasco of The Witcher 2 I wanted to write down some thoughts on why we shouldn't accept bad quality ports from developers.
Only in recent years have we had so many damned games in our Linux libraries that you now see comments from Linux gamers like "I've got too many games already!" which I imagine now sounds familiar to a lot of you. We have never before seen so much attention from developers thanks to Valve & Steam.
Also thanks to the push from developers we are seeing ports come along that are quite frankly lazy or just downright buggy to the point of being unplayable for a majority of people.
The problem is if we keep accepting ports at a sub-par quality then Linux will gain a reputation for having low quality games. Think about that big picture for a moment, seriously.
Imagine if you will that AAA developers started pushing out more games for Linux using technology like this "eON" that was used to port The Witcher 2. Let's say we have a lot of them and it suddenly looks like Linux has a lot of big-name games. You then have plenty of people trying out Linux, and seeing that their games run with terrible performance on the exact same hardware giving them the impression that Linux itself is bad for gaming. That's not good for anyone.
I've seen many people say "the toolkit used to port doesn't matter?". That in my eyes is a very naive statement to make. Of course it matters, it can mean the difference of light and day in the quality of a game on Linux. Which directly goes back to my point above about the perception of Linux gaming.
You can still say the toolkit doesn't matter and use whatever comparison/analogy you fancy, but if the toolkit is the root cause of the issue, like it will be 99% of the time when we are talking about computer software then yes, it does of course matter.
I've seen comments now from other major websites stating we should just accept them and be thankful we have them at all. That is an idiotic statement from people who don't look at the bigger picture.
Think about the developers and publishers who will see it as acceptable to push terrible Linux ports out the door and call it a day with only profits in mind. The consumer perception of Linux gaming would worsen yet again with even more bad quality ports.
I am all for ports from developers, of course I am I run this site after-all. I as a customer however do not want to pay for games that would work on Windows, but run like a snail on Linux, why should I? Why should you?
Final added point: You should never attack a developer when they reach out to the community having issues, that's not acceptable. Feedback is fine, but name calling is childish and makes Linux again look bad. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Why we think it's eON?
Benchmarks:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/29958-Linux-issues-and-user-solutions?s=bfc51ea74da412c48d4dd56a647cd80e&p=1302703&viewfull=1#post1302703
Results - https://imgur.com/a/NuTrl
And then like Samsai said, the base game shouldn't have changed between the Windows version and the wrapped version. The fact that even some people get an extra 20fps perf on WINE over the eON wrapper when eON is specifically targeted for Witcher 2 is just mindblowing.
"The toolkit used to port doesn't matter" - you mean it doesn't matter in regards to end-result perf? Because it DOES matter if the toolkit is the thing causing the bad perf. And from what we can see, it's eON (the toolkit) that's causing the bad perf for many people. This is why Liam said it's naive to think that the toolkit doesn't matter.
Edit: I personally don't buy really expensive games and got it only because it was on sale for $4. Whether it was worth it or not depends on if I can play it on Linux, and right now I'm leaning on downloading from GoG and using WINE instead. 15GB steam download wasted, unless they push updates.
Edit2: http://steamcommunity.com/app/20920/discussions/0/522728268811804386/ see this for some fixes if you're running the steam/eON version.
Benchmarks:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/29958-Linux-issues-and-user-solutions?s=bfc51ea74da412c48d4dd56a647cd80e&p=1302703&viewfull=1#post1302703
Results - https://imgur.com/a/NuTrl
And then like Samsai said, the base game shouldn't have changed between the Windows version and the wrapped version. The fact that even some people get an extra 20fps perf on WINE over the eON wrapper when eON is specifically targeted for Witcher 2 is just mindblowing.
"The toolkit used to port doesn't matter" - you mean it doesn't matter in regards to end-result perf? Because it DOES matter if the toolkit is the thing causing the bad perf. And from what we can see, it's eON (the toolkit) that's causing the bad perf for many people. This is why Liam said it's naive to think that the toolkit doesn't matter.
Edit: I personally don't buy really expensive games and got it only because it was on sale for $4. Whether it was worth it or not depends on if I can play it on Linux, and right now I'm leaning on downloading from GoG and using WINE instead. 15GB steam download wasted, unless they push updates.
Edit2: http://steamcommunity.com/app/20920/discussions/0/522728268811804386/ see this for some fixes if you're running the steam/eON version.
3 Likes, Who?
Wine and likes would be good on olds games. But in games yet to released please a native port!
0 Likes
Quoting: pd12Why we think it's eON?
Benchmarks:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/29958-Linux-issues-and-user-solutions?s=bfc51ea74da412c48d4dd56a647cd80e&p=1302703&viewfull=1#post1302703
Results - https://imgur.com/a/NuTrl
yes, it is eON fault, but major problem was first specified by developer that got attacked so badly. eON does not switch to full screen, which doesn't disable compositing.
there are also people who say it is otherwise and eON performs well. right now, it is pretty much known fact that if you switch to lighter WM like metacity, performance more than doubles. gnome-shell is extra terrible here
0 Likes
Quoting: liamdaweQuoting: scaineAnd one more thing - this editorial is based on us "accepting" the port. When did we do that? I had this game in my library from some bundle I bought years ago - and I suspect most did too.I purchased the game believing it was a properly tested native port,
What constitutes our "acceptance". Buying the game? Too late. Playing it? Well, it's working great on my system. Are you suggesting I don't play it because a minority are having problems?
And is it a minority? How many people are actually affected by this terrible port that works really well for me?
I get it. You're angry because it doesn't work for you. Doubly so, if you bought the game. But using your editorial power to trash a company's efforts to enter the Linux market? Based on supposition?
No. I'm not supporting that.
...
If you don't like my opinion, don't read it.
Native port, just like Mac, right? Since the Mac port was the grounds for the Linux port to be made "easily", right? If you had exercised an ounce of deductive reasoning you would have known it wasn't native.
0 Likes
FutureSuture May 25, 2014
How much would a native port have cost as compared to whatever was done here? I am rather curious. It's not like the game is from over a decade ago and it's not like the source code isn't available either.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestHindsight is great, but there was no reason to think it wasn't a native port when it was released. It was only after inspecting the files from the downloaded game that this was determined. CDProjekt didn't state it anywhere (at least, not anywhere easily visible) prior to that.
Actually the hardware requirement was so unbalanced between Windows and Mac/Linux that it was possible to guess there was something going on. I personally thought it was wrapped with Wine and I bought it even if my machine is not meeting the minimum requirement as a way to tell the developers that considering Linux as a viable platform was not an error, it was quite cheap anyway.
0 Likes
Quoting: FutureSutureHow much would a native port have cost as compared to whatever was done here? I am rather curious. It's not like the game is from over a decade ago and it's not like the source code isn't available either.
Definitely MUCH more (both in money and time) than the wrapper since they would have to port the engine first.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestHindsight is great, but there was no reason to think it wasn't a native port when it was released. It was only after inspecting the files from the downloaded game that this was determined. CDProjekt didn't state it anywhere (at least, not anywhere easily visible) prior to that.
The system requirements, specifically the CPU & RAM differences between Windows & Linux are a dead give away, you need to read between the lines but the facts are right there. The author stated he is well aware of crappy Mac ports using wrappers, then claimed ignorance in this case. That is sounding disingenuous & a lot like poutrage.
Someone in this thread said how PS3 ports are/were crap, and they were shouted down for that not being any kind of excuse. Yes, a world with no bad ports would be great, but we don't live in that world, yet.
The PS3 argument is that the PS3 gamers continued to show support for developers & publishers who provided games in the early years, even if those games didn't run as well as the Xbox versions. This often resulted in more money being spent on PS3 ports since the user base had proven itself to exist. Yes there is a danger of sending the message that poor performance is acceptable, but a bigger danger is sending the message that the user base doesn't exist. You just need to look at the Wii U to see what happens when no one buys games, they stop coming.
No we shouldn't accept poor ports forever, & new demanding games should run mostly native, but we need to accept the current reality.
0 Likes
FutureSuture May 25, 2014
Quoting: fedsoWhat about Valve's ToGL? Considering all of Valve's games that are on Linux now and run pretty damn fine, using ToGL sounds like a much better approach than eON.Quoting: FutureSutureHow much would a native port have cost as compared to whatever was done here? I am rather curious. It's not like the game is from over a decade ago and it's not like the source code isn't available either.Definitely MUCH more (both in money and time) than the wrapper since they would have to port the engine first.
0 Likes
Quoting: AnonymousSomeone in this thread said how PS3 ports are/were crap, and they were shouted down for that not being any kind of excuse. Yes, a world with no bad ports would be great, but we don't live in that world, yet.
The PS3 argument is that the PS3 gamers continued to show support for developers & publishers who provided games in the early years, even if those games didn't run as well as the Xbox versions. This often resulted in more money being spent on PS3 ports since the user base had proven itself to exist. Yes there is a danger of sending the message that poor performance is acceptable, but a bigger danger is sending the message that the user base doesn't exist. You just need to look at the Wii U to see what happens when no one buys games, they stop coming.
thanks on putting my comment into english that actually makes sense, lol.
i would just add one more thing. ps3 was in waaaaay more dire situation than linux is when multiplatform games were considered. it had completely different infrastructure based on SPU processing. porting to linux is like saying cake compared to porting to Cell with extra slow gpu and small amount of ram.
one has to remember that driver situation is kinda bad side of linux which developers are facing too, beside other linux quirks like case sensitive file system and so on... sadly, you don't see many people actually providing feedback. 1 out of 100 is doing that, 99 are doing the entitlement dance. instead of realizing that if you help fix up the root of the problem, you'll be facing shinier days
i was ps3 user from day 1 and i can say ps3 had it 10x worse than linux has it right now. but, when there was competition why ps3, even bad ports were named as reason, go figure. now, go and try finding public crucifixion of some developer
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me