Legends Of Eisenwald Linux Port Put On Hold, Developers Asking For Help To Port It

Sorry, but if I was about planning a port, why would I start an engine with DX9?

As I see it: There was a kickstarter campaign and one certain goal was to deliver a Linux port. That goal was not met. Fine. So no Linux port. But it seems like they thought that somewhere down the line they would still like to do one.

Now, did they write the engine from scratch during/after the kickstarter? Because if so, this is just stupidity³.

Quoting: MaelraneSorry, but if I was about planning a port, why would I start an engine with DX9?

As I see it: There was a kickstarter campaign and one certain goal was to deliver a Linux port. That goal was not met. Fine. So no Linux port. But it seems like they thought that somewhere down the line they would still like to do one.

Now, did they write the engine from scratch during/after the kickstarter? Because if so, this is just stupidity³.

I don't get this negative response at all. They didn't get enough money to do everything they wanted, so they did what they could with the tools they knew best.
They didn't promise a Linux port, but still want to make one. I really appreciate the dedication, and I really appreciate them being honest and asking the community. I just wished I had the time and expertise to help, I hope they find people who do.

EDIT: Just checked the KS page, they did promised the Linux version "If not, we will port it anyway to these platforms but at a later date." My comment still stands though, due to limited funds they started with what was easiest and fastest for them to do. And at least they are willing to accept help.


Last edited by ricki42 on 12 November 2015 at 7:56 pm UTC

Quoting: ricki42I don't get this negative response at all. They didn't get enough money to do everything they wanted, so they did what they could with the tools they knew best.
They didn't promise a Linux port, but still want to make one. I really appreciate the dedication, and I really appreciate them being honest and asking the community. I just wished I had the time and expertise to help, I hope they find people who do.

I guess the point made was, that since they expressed their plan to develop a platform independent game from the get-go it's a fairly silly decision to go ahead and develop it using technology that doesn't run anywhere but on Windows. Porting a finished product is a lot more troublesome than developing the software with cross-platform deployment in mind. If you want a Windows-only game, use DX. If you want a multi-platform game, use OpenGL, because it runs on all platforms.

That being said, it's still nice to hear that they want to get the game ported despite getting no funding for it. That's the opposite of what Larian did, I guess. :D

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: MaelraneSorry, but if I was about planning a port, why would I start an engine with DX9?

Yeah, they should have used OpenGL or use an engine that they can update to Vulkan support, and use OpenGL/Vulkan for every platform. Pretty dumb to do anything besides that.

"updating" OpenGL with Vulkan is pretty much an own render path as well, that does not make a difference to DX9/D3D to OpenGL porting [at all]. It's still a fully own rendering path. Using an engine which will be capable of would have been possible, but I get the issue of why people often rather rely on their own engines than taking engines on the market.

An example would be Shroud of the Avatar: Going for the Unity engine being very limited in terms of Open World won't do the game any good, and is one of the reasons the game is really really annoying, despite their marketing you have a lot of zoning and a lot of waiting time.

If OpenGL was a viable choice on Windows, well, they could have started with OpenGL. There is a reason why most game devs don't and do take up the workload of going for a seperate OpenGL rendering path for Mac/Linux.

Vulkan isn't finished yet, and didn't have proper dev tools when they started, so it wasn't really a viable choice for an engine to start with. Now you probably could start, but still Vulkan is not done (yet).

As I see it, they got their priorities right. They didn't have the funding for a port, and concentrate on their Windows game. Maybe they'll have the money to do a port later, but at this time, they made the only right choice business whise and for their kickstarter badgers: Bring the game out for Windows before you can't afford the Office any longer, and don't dabble with side projects not funded.

It's not my kind of game, so I won't jump to support it - though, I still hope they can do it some day for all the users interested in the game.


Last edited by STiAT on 12 November 2015 at 8:42 pm UTC

I appreciate their honesty, but the first thing that came to my mind was "why not start with OpenGL in the first place?" and this was before reading the comments above.

However looking at their Kickstarter page, the project was started around April 2012 where (at the time) Linux still wasn't as popular for gaming. Hopefully they'll work on it at some point, would love to buy this.

Quoting: KimyrielleI guess the point made was, that since they expressed their plan to develop a platform independent game from the get-go it's a fairly silly decision to go ahead and develop it using technology that doesn't run anywhere but on Windows. Porting a finished product is a lot more troublesome than developing the software with cross-platform deployment in mind. If you want a Windows-only game, use DX. If you want a multi-platform game, use OpenGL, because it runs on all platforms.

I do understand the point, and I agree in principle. Multiplatform games should be multiplatform right from the start. But I also (try to) understand the developers' situation. They only got enough funding to develop a Windows game. They had to finish and sells this game before their money ran out. Porting now costs them more money and time total, but developing multiplatform from the start would have likely delayed the Windows release, which is where most of their money comes from. Too much delay, and there might not have been a game at all.

This is an unfortunate situation, but I hope in the future as more engines get Linux support and more developers have experience with Linux, and hopefully Vulkan helping with multiplatform support as well, the additional initial investment for going multiplatform from the start will be minimal and situations like this will become less common *knock on wood*.
In the meantime, I think being honest and talking to the community is one of the better solutions that developers have chosen in situations like this.

Quoting: MaelraneSorry, but if I was about planning a port, why would I start an engine with DX9?

Quoting: Avehicle7887"why not start with OpenGL in the first place?"

Because it is much easier to do so.

It's no wonder Kronos started Vulkan from the ground up, as developers all around have been complaining about the numerous flaws that affect OpenGL.

Each time you see a port being criticized because of poor performance, remember that there are some things OpenGL handles very differently from DX9/10 and are a real mess to port or to code.

That's one of the reasons why having all the major engines already ported to Linux is a priority if we want Steam's venture to be a success -- something that's already in a very good shape.


Last edited by omer666 on 12 November 2015 at 8:51 pm UTC

They _did_ promise a Linux port.
And I bought it, because of that promise. That'll teach me :(


Last edited by flammenbringer on 12 November 2015 at 9:03 pm UTC

Very nice sice screenshot.

QuoteWe still want to port our game but we either will have to wait for our financial situations to improve or rely on our community help. If anyone is willing to help us with it, please let us know.

I would love to help them port it over to Linux. But an entire engine is a very difficult beast to tame, even more so if there is few people working on it (there are exceptions, of course: in dying light's case, there were only two devs working on the port; then, there's Icculus and others :)). Moreover, I have a lot of ongoing projects. So, not anytime soon, for me at least.
Any volunteer?

Quoting: omer666

Quoting: MaelraneSorry, but if I was about planning a port, why would I start an engine with DX9?

Quoting: Avehicle7887"why not start with OpenGL in the first place?"

Because it is much easier to do so.

It's no wonder Kronos started Vulkan from the ground up, as developers all around have been complaining about the numerous flaws that affect OpenGL.

Each time you see a port being criticized because of poor performance, remember that there are some things OpenGL handles very differently from DX9/10 and are a real mess to port or to code.

That's one of the reasons why having all the major engines already ported to Linux is a priority if we want Steam's venture to be a success -- something that's already in a very good shape.

True, OpenGl has several flaws, starting at functions (several functions for the same usecase but to use differently with different performance outcomes for different use cases - hey, we know that from alsa already :D). The other bad thing is ressource optimization, it only uses a realy low part of the available ressources (CPU/GPU whise) and that's a design-based flaw (thread contexts / querying primarily), compared to DirectX/D3D < 12 is pretty much the same, if you know which functions to use in OpenGL. But there are not too many OpenGL experts out there, compared to D3D. I certainly know a bit, but I'm far from being good enough to port/write a whole 3D engine (as DrMacCoy is, kudus for that... my best effort for an engine yet was a iso/2d based engine years ago for a proof of concept).


Last edited by STiAT on 12 November 2015 at 9:46 pm UTC