In a recent interview with PC Gamer, lead producer Brandon Adler of Obsidian said, "I don't think it was worthwhile developing for Linux. They are a very, very small portion of our active user base - I think around one and a half percent of our users were Linux."
While he did add that is was easy to get the game running on Linux, he cites additional logistical problems like QA and a development team with no previous experience developing for the platform.
These comments stand in slight contrast with statements made in June to Mac Gamer HQ where the interviewer asked "Do Mac and Linux sales justify the extra work involved?" and got back "Yes. Any time you can get the game out on multiple platforms is a huge win for sales because obviously your audience is expanded to include many more people." Although one could argue since the site is a Mac site, the response was equally Mac-slanted, despite the mention of Linux.
As with any such statements, I wonder if the aforementioned added burden can be quantified in time/money spent, and how that compares with the income gained form the 1.5% Linux sales. Surely, it was just a matter of it feeling like a larger burden than it really was due to it being new for the studio?
Smaller studios with reservations about Linux development should really consider outsourcing these efforts, or at least be open to licensed ports. I'm fairly sure the likes of Aspyr/Feral would be more than happy to reap the rewards of managing such ports, especially when the effort is purely QA and support, rather than actually needing to port engines.
Editor Note: If any developer creates a Linux version before Steam Machines are released and expects more than 2% of sales from it, they're doing it wrong. You're doing it for the future and for the long run, not for a quick gain which you won't get right now. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
While he did add that is was easy to get the game running on Linux, he cites additional logistical problems like QA and a development team with no previous experience developing for the platform.
These comments stand in slight contrast with statements made in June to Mac Gamer HQ where the interviewer asked "Do Mac and Linux sales justify the extra work involved?" and got back "Yes. Any time you can get the game out on multiple platforms is a huge win for sales because obviously your audience is expanded to include many more people." Although one could argue since the site is a Mac site, the response was equally Mac-slanted, despite the mention of Linux.
As with any such statements, I wonder if the aforementioned added burden can be quantified in time/money spent, and how that compares with the income gained form the 1.5% Linux sales. Surely, it was just a matter of it feeling like a larger burden than it really was due to it being new for the studio?
Smaller studios with reservations about Linux development should really consider outsourcing these efforts, or at least be open to licensed ports. I'm fairly sure the likes of Aspyr/Feral would be more than happy to reap the rewards of managing such ports, especially when the effort is purely QA and support, rather than actually needing to port engines.
Editor Note: If any developer creates a Linux version before Steam Machines are released and expects more than 2% of sales from it, they're doing it wrong. You're doing it for the future and for the long run, not for a quick gain which you won't get right now. 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.
Patreon
PayPal
The inexperience in Linux development is a point that could make us hope. Obviously, this has gotten better with the first port, and maybe they want to use that experience for the next game. (I had not a single problem with their port, by the way.)
A linux player that has bought the box in the store and thus probably was not counted for Linux...
Last edited by Eike on 31 August 2015 at 10:07 am UTC
Some super vague calculations (I can't take credit for this @directhex raised this on Twitter earlier today) lets us take a guess at some numbers. 1.5% of an estimated 500,000 copies equates at 70% of $45 ea would equate to $236,250 worth of takings, which seems to me like it would more than cover the QA overheads involved (there can't have been meaningful engine porting costs, unless they had source access to the Unity engine and/or were paying Unity Technologies additional money to resolve Linux specific issues - I don't believe they were).
The interview also fails to recognise that Unity has been steadily maturing on Linux as time wears on, bringing more stability and robustness. This is something that Pillars of Eternity itself has likely to contributed to. It's a shame that that isn't being celebrated here.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
In this didn't bother to touch on other expenses that can reduce profit margins (note that I was specifically talking about takings and not profit). I had expected that that stuff would already be understood by most readers. I expand on that a little in this post.
Last edited by Cheeseness on 1 September 2015 at 4:44 am UTC
I really am failing to see how they didn't think it was worth it, sure the percentage is low, but why do developers repeatedly hark on about the percentage of the platform. They clearly made quite a bit of money from the Linux version of it, and there's simply no way support costs for the Linux version were higher than what they made. If it is, to me that's another case of developers taking too much money from what the game has made, and not using it correctly.
Using data from SteamSpy, it currently has 509,875 owners.
Rounding down owners and price here to allow for fluctuations:
1% of 500,000 = 5,000
5,000 x £30 = £150,000
That doesn't count any GOG sales of course, of which there will be a few, but probably not as many as Steam. 5,000 people buying the Linux version doesn't sound like much, but looking at the income generated from it, it's quite reasonable isn't it?
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 31 August 2015 at 10:32 am UTC
If the engine's Linux support improved over their development time (that is good, but) that imposes costs by additional bugs you get in early development time and which you have to track down at least until you're sure on which side, engine or game, they are created and which you have to track and possibly work around. That's even more true if the engine's Linux support improved due to your game development.
What we know from humble, Linux-Players usually pay more than Windows-Gamers. I, in example, had a 130 € pledge for Pillars of Eternity.
@Cheeseness I'm running with the steamspy data (Owners: 509,875 ± 18,537, http://steamspy.com/app/291650), so we're running towards 500.000 copies instead of 400.000. Humble bundle did show off that linux gamers usually pay more than windows gamers (would be interesting what linux gamers pledged on kickstarter, I was in with € 130 for two copies, making one copy worth 65 €). Interestingly, if I calculate with 500.000 instead of 400.000 and 1.5 % of the userbase, 70 % after-tax and paying 45 € I get to 236.250 € as you do with 400.000 - typo?
But I certainly agree, if the port was not complicated like hell, 236k certainly sounds like a profit to me.
Last edited by STiAT on 31 August 2015 at 10:30 am UTC
This!
Also, when it comes to investment, I wonder which of the following statements is true for Obsidian:
1.) They don't know about SteamOS.
2.) They know about SteamOS but don't know it's actually Linux.
3.) They know about SteamOS being Linux but don't have faith in it being successful.
4.) They know about SteamOS being Linux and see it being successful but still doubt the market share will justify a Linux release.
Did I miss something?
Last edited by sub on 31 August 2015 at 11:54 am UTC
https://medium.com/@adrianchm/indie-developers-cannot-count-money-ccb6d32229e8
Last edited by hardpenguin on 31 August 2015 at 11:05 am UTC
+1
We just don't know the numbers.
"Fixing bugs was the most work"
Was this the guy's first software project or what?
Fixing bugs is pretty much to be expected to take the longest of all development of a big software project, and that's not anyhow specific to Linux or any other platform in particular.