Support us on Patreon
PayPal
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.
Can you tell me your build? I can barely get above 40 fps in my game despite being over the recommended settings.
I think experience is something you gain and if you keep pushing it you get very good at it. I don't see reason why having Linux development experience is bad for Obsidian.
v2.00.0706 - steam
on nvidia the trick is -> __GL_THREADED_OPTIMIZATIONS=1 LC_ALL=C %command%
Use a Phenom II X6 1090T + GTX 970
Perhaps they could have gotten the 200k for some other feature, sure. But again, this is totally and utterly IRRELEVANT. They asked for 200k to fund the ports and got it. Your statement is akin to saying "Yes, I asked my dad for $500 for college textbooks but I spent them all on booze, so my college books weren't funded!"
No, OUR budget. Remember we gave them 200k to make the port?
You don't seem to understand the difference between revenue and profit. The $350k after Steam's cut went into their pockets (at least the largest part of it) and can be used to fund any Linux related costs OTHER than the port itself, which was already paid for. As long as only ONE DOLLAR is left after subtracting all direct costs caused by them supporting Linux (and it would be utterly incorrect to to count any but Linux-related direct costs) it was worth doing it.
You don't seem to realize that 1.5% of sales caused by 1% of the customer base means a whopping 50% over-representation of Linux users. Math is really amazing, huh?
Seriously, I have no idea what their expectations were, if they are so disappointed. Did they REALLY think that 1% of the customer base could be responsible for 10% of the sales or so? In which mass market did that EVER happen?
Yes, I guess what happened is that they looked at the numbers and saw a tiny Linux figure next to a huge, huge sum representing their Windows sales. Big surprise there! I don't think they looked at it correctly, though. And the correct business perspective is checking if the Linux support in brought ONE DOLLAR more than it cost to make and maintain. If that's the case it's worth doing. That's really very basic business logic.
I can afford a BMW and don't have one. Because I don't want one. Your point?
But whichever, I'm glad to see so many worthwhile games being ported to Linux. these are some interesting times indeed.
Selling games for a long time doesn't make them experts in crowdfunding. They were successful with Pillars, sure. But such attitude as shown above towards Linux users doesn't translate into good relationship with the community which can be critical for their future crowdfunding success. I.e. they still seem to think in publisher funded terms (at least in context of Linux). Such studios should also think about backers, not just about sales alone. inXile get that better I think.
They might revert back to publisher funded games, and that would be unfortunate. But if they want to continue crowdfunding campaigns, they better think twice before saying such stuff.
Last edited by Shmerl on 1 September 2015 at 1:23 am UTC
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again Direct Link
"As of February 2015, over 4,500 games are available through Steam, which has 125 million active users."
Please sir, grace us with more of your divine wisdom about this so-called Linux and why it will never being successful.
View video on youtube.com
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again Direct Link
"The native operating system of the PlayStation 4 is Orbis OS, which is a fork of FreeBSD"
"Sony has revealed PlayStation 4 console sales numbers passed the 22.3 million mark"
Oops, 2 l8 m8.
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 1 September 2015 at 3:50 am UTC
You're a Genius. I guess 30 years of experience guarantees that someone"knows what they're doing" - cuz you know 30 years ago in game development, the platform, market, demographic and distribution mechanisms have all stayed exactly the same.
Maybe 30 years from now you can spread some audible chocolate to us all about how lobotomies and blood letting will solve any ailment because you have "X years experience".
Also "stop counting Obsidian's profits" - you mean throw away our intel which we use to make educated guesses? What a brilliant idea, while we're at it lets all just throw away common sense and good judgement too.
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 1 September 2015 at 3:43 am UTC