Note: Article updated to better explain 1 or 2 points.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I don't think forcing this is a good idea, and it would be extremely damaging to Linux adoption and Linux gaming if it was a regular thing; it'd be so much harder to get people to try Linux if they had to pay extra for the Linux versions. Especially when so many Linux ports have lower performance than on Windows.
Plus, in theory almost everyone that has bought those games is either exclusively or primarily a Windows user - at least when it comes to gaming - and few of those would pay extra for a Linux version anyway, so making it available to everyone should translate to very few "lost" sales of the Linux version.
(I do agree with supporting Linux ports though, which is why I buy gift copies & run giveaways when a game I like and already own gets a Linux release, as long as they're DRM-free)
Plus, in theory almost everyone that has bought those games is either exclusively or primarily a Windows user - at least when it comes to gaming - and few of those would pay extra for a Linux version anyway, so making it available to everyone should translate to very few "lost" sales of the Linux version.
(I do agree with supporting Linux ports though, which is why I buy gift copies & run giveaways when a game I like and already own gets a Linux release, as long as they're DRM-free)
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: liamdaweIt's the same as "Coming to PC!" When PC is NOT a platform. The OS is.
This really grinds my gears. When people refer to the PC, the hardware as the OS platform. When developers say "coming to PC" I see that as ignorant, dishonest and misleading (unless it actually is coming all OS on the PC, which never happens).
Last edited by Aryvandaar on 16 March 2017 at 3:09 pm UTC
0 Likes
kernel.havok Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: LeopardI'm on Linux for two years but i already bought bunch of games on LinuxHaha, You bought a bunch of games on linux therefore you should get other third parties conversion efforts for free? Sometimes this is the case (OpenXcom, OpenMW) but why should people always have to do it for free?
Besides, you talk as if you're buying games as and giving money to the same monolithic organisation. Not sure if you're just virtue signalling or what at this point.
Quoting: LeopardWe didn't say 'we don't want to pay for the game anyway'... We already bought itIf you already paid for it then you could have run the installer native in linux from 2001. What you're paying for is the convenience of running it native in linux.
1 Likes, Who?
Comandante Ñoñardo Mar 17, 2017
Quoting: AryvandaarQuoting: Comandante ÑoñardoI don't believe in dual boot. I prefer to have the things separated. That's why I have two steam accounts.
Nope, I saw what you wrote about having two machines. :)
I stopped dual-booting as well, but just cause W10 was being a little bitch when I upgraded from W7. Instead of fucking around with the booting I just bought a new ssd for Linux and took out the Windows ssd. I ordered a 2nd ssd mount for my Windows ssd. If I have to use Windows I have to shut down the computer and plug in power + sata, which would encourage me not to use Windows cause I cba to.
Can you get a Case with a disk dock on top?.. eventually?
My case is a very generic one, (The pic is not mine, but the case is the same)
Is very useful when I have to exchange backup drives between both machines... Or If I need to do an emergency Linux boot on the windows machine for my own Linux vs Windows game comparatives.
I assembled the Windows 7 machine recently, in September of 2016, after the end of the forced Windows 10 upgrade period.
I didn't want to install Windows 7 during the Free Windows 10 upgrade, because I was afraid that the crappy upgrade will be installed against my will.
Meanwhile I am writing this post with my Ubuntu machine, on my Windows 7 machine I am downloading the 10 hours trial of Mass Effect: Andromeda...
Spoiler, click me
The EA "Origin Access" feature is the best idea from that company.. Is amazing to be able to play a lot of full games and trials of EA exclusive games for just 5 U$D per month... Valve MUST take note about that.
I am doing some tests on my Linux machine, and I can see that Metro Redux use all my cores and the load on each core is more or less the same, never 100%.... meanwhile with Life is Strange, only 2 cores are used with a load of about 100% each core.
0 Likes
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoCan you get a Case with a disk dock on top?.. eventually?I appreciate the input, but part of the point is to make booting Windows a pain in the ass. :P
My case is a very generic one, (The pic is not mine, but the case is the same)
Is very useful when I have to exchange backup drives between both machines... Or If I need to do an emergency Linux boot on the windows machine for my own Linux vs Windows game comparatives.
Anyway, I intend to use as little money I have to on my current PC. I'm using a Corsair Carbide 500R case from around 2012.
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoI assembled the Windows 7 machine recently, in September of 2016, after the end of the forced Windows 10 upgrade period.I have a Windows 10 pro key I use that a friend gave to me.
I didn't want to install Windows 7 during the Free Windows 10 upgrade, because I was afraid that the crappy upgrade will be installed against my will.
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoMeanwhile I am writing this post with my Ubuntu machine, on my Windows 7 machine I am downloading the 10 hours trial of Mass Effect: Andromeda...Spoiler, click me
The EA "Origin Access" feature is the best idea from that company.. Is amazing to be able to play a lot of full games and trials of EA exclusive games for just 5 U$D per month... Valve MUST take note about that.
I'm playing the ME 4 trial now as well. I really like the EA Access / Origin Access service. We need more stuff like that. EA should be praised for creating this service. It's not as good as the demos we got back in the dag, but it's better than nothing.
0 Likes
Quoting: WendigoI personally don't think it should be the duty of the end customer to ensure payment of the porting companies.
A Linux port of their games gives the original developers a wider customer base and thus a bigger income.
If the developers don't do the ports themselves the porter should be paid per order by the original developer. "Port our game X to platform Y and we pay you X€ for this job."
There should be a one time payment for the porting (+ a software support contract for eliminating bugs after the port).
Basically like it is handled with books.
Translators are usually only paid once by the original author / publishing company and not for every sold book in the additional language.
This has nothing to do with "duty". How many articles do we need from developers that their efforts to port their games to Linux was not worth it before you guys realise that we represent such a tiny fraction of the gaming market?
If i.e Feral would have to wait for publishing houses to pay them for converting games then we would never have gotten any of the games that they have ported so far. Now I don't know exactly how Feral operates but a qualified guess is that they take a financial risk in the hope that game X will sell enough on Linux to be worth the work and then they approach i.e Square Enix and buys the rights for the Linux and Mac versions, where the cost for this rights can be either a one time fee, a percentage of sales or a combination.
Some one have to pay for all of this somehow or the work will not be done, if the Linux gaming market would be huge enough then the publishers would pay for this and none of this discussion that we have would happen but we are not there (yet) so the publishers won't pay. And the porting companies cannot carry the payment since this is their income so all that is left is us the customers. There is no way around this as the situation is right now regardless of what might be "right".
3 Likes, Who?
ObsidianBlk Mar 17, 2017
Quoting: kernel.havokNot exactly sure what your point is here. OpenXcom and OpenMW are recreations of the engines, from scratch, by software developers that both love the games they're building executables for, as well as love the challenge of backwards engineering the engine. These are free because they have no license in which to distribute there work in any form of paid method. Furthermore, neither project give out the original digital assets. It's expected that any user wanting to run either of these executables already has a copy of the game from which these new engines load the assets.Quoting: LeopardI'm on Linux for two years but i already bought bunch of games on LinuxHaha, You bought a bunch of games on linux therefore you should get other third parties conversion efforts for free? Sometimes this is the case (OpenXcom, OpenMW) but why should people always have to do it for free?
Besides, you talk as if you're buying games as and giving money to the same monolithic organisation. Not sure if you're just virtue signalling or what at this point.
These people do, in their spare time, the same job as a Porter does. Here's where the difference is... we don't pay the people of these project (for the aforementioned license issue), but the payment for LICENCED porters should be fully worked out between the porter and the development house hiring them. WE, as the consumers, should NOT be responsible for their payment... at least, not in the way that seems to be the intimated by this thread.
Quoting: kernel.havokQuoting: LeopardWe didn't say 'we don't want to pay for the game anyway'... We already bought itIf you already paid for it then you could have run the installer native in linux from 2001. What you're paying for is the convenience of running it native in linux.
If we were paying a percentage of the original total cost, then, I could agree with you. However, when you're speaking of having to pay the full price of a game for two separate OSes that, beyond small technical differences, do not otherwise force artificial limitations on developers in order to release software upon them, then, no, paying full price is complete crap. Here's why...
The majority of the data that constitutes a game (the shear data size) is almost completely in the games assets (art, audio, scripts, etc). These assets do NOT change from OS to OS. What changes is the binary data (executable and libraries), and, even then, if the initial developer is even remotely competent, the code that constitutes core game mechanics would translate over between OSes with virtually no code change. So, even within binary data, the porter is not totally redeveloping the wheel, so why should we have to pay full price if we've already done so once.
If you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twice, when the difference between a game on two OSes is the difference of (at an extreme) ~100 MEGAbytes in a package of 2 to 100 GIGAbytes.
1 Likes, Who?
kernel.havok Mar 17, 2017
Quoting: ObsidianBlkIf you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twiceFull cost -- we're talking about 5 dollars (here in Australia). As minimum wage here is ~17 dollars an hour, I can honestly tell you it would take you more than 20 minutes (the cost of working to earn 5 dollars) to code a game client that could execute natively on linux using those game assets.
Quoting: ObsidianBlkNot exactly sure what your point is here.It's exactly as I suggested: some third parties (whether private individuals or commercial entities) are paid, some third parties do it for free. Quite obviously by mentioning those two projects I was referring to game assets being made to load and execute close to original game but natively on linux.
Quoting: ObsidianBlkWE, as the consumers, should NOT be responsible for their paymentOf course we are responsible for their, porters, payment -- we either choose to buy the game under the current licensing agreement or we dont. You're the one making arbitrary definitions of what ought and ought not to be and what licensing and royalty agreements should and should not be.
Quoting: ObsidianBlkhaving to pay the full price ... two separate OSes ...beyond small technical differences
Not being able to run the game and its assets on a given platform is a pretty significant technical difference. To be perfectly frank, suggesting that a game from 2001 being made to execute natively on linux in 2017 is 'a cinch' suggests you've never been involved in large programming projects or or porting and reverse engineering other organisations code before. There is no indication, nor totally relevant, if the original and complete source code was available etc.
Quoting: ObsidianBlkThe majority of the data that constitutes a game (the shear data size) is almost completely in the games assets (art, audio, scripts, etc). These assets do NOT change from OS to OS.What changes is the binary data (executable and libraries), and, even then, if the initial developer is even remotely competent, the code that constitutes core game mechanics would translate over between OSes with virtually no code change.
Again. if you think that there was little work to do on porting 'competent' game code from 2001 then I'd be extraordinarily surprised if you've ever been involved in a large refactoring programming project let alone if reverse engineering was involved for incomplete source code after all these years.
And by what metric 'ought' to be released for free? what about remasters of Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior from a few years ago? Their clients were mostly the only thing updated, no new assets, should you get those releases for free as you, for the sake of this example, had another copy from of those game assets for windows only?'
This is quite absurd to make this arbitrary distinction of when a company ought and ought not charge as a percentage of 'original game assets'. At the end of the day there is new code and, for whatever commercial reason, to get access to that content the developers and third party felt they would not give it away for free to those with the windows copy -- and you're free to either buy or not buy it.
And this is all about entitlement on behalf of the linux gaming community and exactly why there's this recurring theme that linux gamers have an almost delusional entitlement mentality to a supply that honestly doesn't care if we're in the ecosystem.
0 Likes
"If we were paying a percentage of the original total cost, then, I could agree with you. However, when you're speaking of having to pay the full price of a game for two separate OSes that"
if you want to play the game both on windows and on linux? yes, pretty much no one has this use case, so i'm assuming you already have the game and dont want to pay again?
that is a proof that you wouldnt give then 1 cent in any case.
" beyond small technical differences"
just like port from an OS to another.
"The majority of the data that constitutes a game (the shear data size) is almost completely in the games assets (art, audio, scripts, etc)."
the most expensive things on a game are art and code.
" These assets do NOT change from OS to OS."
but the number of the users change from OS to OS, 1% vs 90%.
we are talking about port an game with 1% of the budget here or less assuming people already paid for an game that they had 10 years to give up on the hope of such game ever came to linux, so they purchased anyway the windows version.
"if the initial developer is even remotely competent, the code that constitutes core game mechanics would translate over between OSes with virtually no code change."
assuming that the game engine was made with multiplatform in mind, the code change will be virtually nothing.
but 10 years ago? no one bothered to port stuff to linux, most of the render code should be DirectX code, guess what, the game engine cost may have been split between all the games made with the same, in this case, they would have to deal with the cost of production of the game code+ the cost of production of the game engine to do the port.
assuming they own all the code, they dont have thirdyparty middlewares.
" so why should we have to pay full price if we've already done so once."
that is the problem? just wait for an steam sale.
"If you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twice, when the difference between a game on two OSes is the difference of (at an extreme) ~100 MEGAbytes in a package of 2 to 100 GIGAbytes."
~100MB more likely ~89% of the marketshare.
Last edited by elmapul on 18 March 2017 at 11:46 am UTC
if you want to play the game both on windows and on linux? yes, pretty much no one has this use case, so i'm assuming you already have the game and dont want to pay again?
that is a proof that you wouldnt give then 1 cent in any case.
" beyond small technical differences"
just like port from an OS to another.
"The majority of the data that constitutes a game (the shear data size) is almost completely in the games assets (art, audio, scripts, etc)."
the most expensive things on a game are art and code.
" These assets do NOT change from OS to OS."
but the number of the users change from OS to OS, 1% vs 90%.
we are talking about port an game with 1% of the budget here or less assuming people already paid for an game that they had 10 years to give up on the hope of such game ever came to linux, so they purchased anyway the windows version.
"if the initial developer is even remotely competent, the code that constitutes core game mechanics would translate over between OSes with virtually no code change."
assuming that the game engine was made with multiplatform in mind, the code change will be virtually nothing.
but 10 years ago? no one bothered to port stuff to linux, most of the render code should be DirectX code, guess what, the game engine cost may have been split between all the games made with the same, in this case, they would have to deal with the cost of production of the game code+ the cost of production of the game engine to do the port.
assuming they own all the code, they dont have thirdyparty middlewares.
" so why should we have to pay full price if we've already done so once."
that is the problem? just wait for an steam sale.
"If you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twice, when the difference between a game on two OSes is the difference of (at an extreme) ~100 MEGAbytes in a package of 2 to 100 GIGAbytes."
~100MB more likely ~89% of the marketshare.
Last edited by elmapul on 18 March 2017 at 11:46 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
ObsidianBlk Mar 18, 2017
Quoting: kernel.havok[/quote]Quoting: ObsidianBlkIf you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twiceFull cost -- we're talking about 5 dollars (here in Australia). As minimum wage here is ~17 dollars an hour, I can honestly tell you it would take you more than 20 minutes (the cost of working to earn 5 dollars) to code a game client that could execute natively on linux using those game assets.
...
Please stop it. I believe you're smart enough to have realized I was not speaking solely of this one game, but more to the president is may set for other games that cost several times more than this one example. You also seem smart enough to have grasped that I never suggested (1) Porters don't do a lot of work or (2) some form of compensation was totally out of the question. Your suggestion of my lack of competency in software development suggests you do not feel my evaluation of what components within the over-all application would/should not need porting was accurate... fair enough. I'd be happy to debate that with you in some other form, if you'd like... I'm not perfect. That said, if YOU are familiar with software development, then you should know that virtually no [game] developer builds an application from total scratch, and many libraries used (within the last two decades) are, indeed, universally compilable on most platforms, reducing the work a porter would need to do. This leaves the fact that, again, a porter is not rewriting %100 of the original code, and virtually nothing changes with the assets.
In regards to the argument over getting a game from 2001 to work in 2017... even within Windows there can be issues with that, and sometimes developers put out patches to allow those older games to run some 16 years later. Perhaps they should charge for those patches too. Sure, patching up within the same OS isn't nearly that hard... then again, considering how much Windows has changed from 2001 to 2017, it very well may be just as hard.
Finally, I'm sure you know that both Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior have had their source released. Duke had his source exposed (*chuckles*) for over a decade now. If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again.
0 Likes
"In regards to the argument over getting a game from 2001 to work in 2017... even within Windows there can be issues with that, and sometimes developers put out patches to allow those older games to run some 16 years later."
microsoft do a lot of work to keep the backward compatibility working, that explain part of the reason we can run 16 years old games, about those patches, even games who dont receive then officialy may get from the hacking comunity.
the company may charge for those patches, sure, but they will not risk geting 90% of their users mad, we are, again, in an niche market.
even PC is a niche, witcher 3 sold 3x more on console than on PC, when xbox1/ps4 had about ~30 millions of owners.
we arent even 1%, we are 1% of 25%.
as said by liam, we dont expect to buy the PS4 version of an game and get the xbox1 for free, so why we expect that from pc games?
". If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again."
or maybe they just want to support companys that do the right thing?
i would love to discuss the technical details, but i dont understand nothing about low level.
but even if many libs are multiplatform are they really? feature parity and even bug parity? even simple things as the way an random number is chosen matter.
microsoft do a lot of work to keep the backward compatibility working, that explain part of the reason we can run 16 years old games, about those patches, even games who dont receive then officialy may get from the hacking comunity.
the company may charge for those patches, sure, but they will not risk geting 90% of their users mad, we are, again, in an niche market.
even PC is a niche, witcher 3 sold 3x more on console than on PC, when xbox1/ps4 had about ~30 millions of owners.
we arent even 1%, we are 1% of 25%.
as said by liam, we dont expect to buy the PS4 version of an game and get the xbox1 for free, so why we expect that from pc games?
". If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again."
or maybe they just want to support companys that do the right thing?
i would love to discuss the technical details, but i dont understand nothing about low level.
but even if many libs are multiplatform are they really? feature parity and even bug parity? even simple things as the way an random number is chosen matter.
0 Likes
what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
0 Likes
Quoting: peterf28what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
i dont know if they removed it, or it was implicity since all games support it so they didnt need an logo for that.
that explain why we have 2 entries of the same game (one for the windows version one for the mac/linux version)
instead of, the only difference be that for this game we dont have the steamplay logo
0 Likes
People not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
1 Likes, Who?
thelimeydragon Mar 21, 2017
Quoting: peterf28what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
No there are just 2 versions of the game on Steam. One package has the depots of the Mac and Linux versions which are steamplay with each other. One package only has the Windows version which is also steamplay but as the only depot in it is the Windows version it's only "steamplay" with Windows.
0 Likes
Quoting: JanPeople not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
A couple of counter points where the hell did you get that information from as i googled that and got nothing are you sure thats real because 2k have been very pro Linux. Point 2 Braid sold badly under linux okay boo hoo maybe it was the length of time it took to get to linux and secondly its not exactly a must play game imo. Double fine abandoning Linux would be a shame but meh can live without more pixel retro indie games.
Secondly why would anyone be happy to pay for a game twice I own it played it and beat it on another platform. When i switched to Linux I made a point to only buy games that are Linux but why should i be financially punished for dual booting back in the day.
0 Likes
Quoting: Whitewolfe80Quoting: JanPeople not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
A couple of counter points where the hell did you get that information from as i googled that and got nothing are you sure thats real because 2k have been very pro Linux. Point 2 Braid sold badly under linux okay boo hoo maybe it was the length of time it took to get to linux and secondly its not exactly a must play game imo. Double fine abandoning Linux would be a shame but meh can live without more pixel retro indie games.
Secondly why would anyone be happy to pay for a game twice I own it played it and beat it on another platform. When i switched to Linux I made a point to only buy games that are Linux but why should i be financially punished for dual booting back in the day.
He is just making things out of his.... mind.
That is not about api,if a game comes to Linux 2 years later;of course people won't buy it.Because game will be unpopular as the time goes by.
And that 'Braid'. C'mon,it's not a must play game so it shouldn't be surprising.
0 Likes
I'm not making things up -- I'm just stating facts, not alternative ones, directly from the horse's mouth.
Do you guys even read Aspyr's or Feral's Facebook pages, are you subscribed to their newsletters?
Aspyr Facebook on December 22, 2016: "Linux users... I love you. There has been some talk about linux, but there is nothing in the works."
They repeated this statement several times on their social media channels using different formulations, but it's basically: "We talked it about it (with the publisher), but it won't happen".
Just to remind you:
Aspyr released KotOR II on Mac on Linux simultaneously. In October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
Of course, these are just re-releases of older classics, but still: Why did they bother to bring Fahrenheit and KotOR II over to Linux and now they're scaling their business model back to Mac and iOS ports (and delayed Linux releases like Civ VI)?
Porters need to get paid and at least break-even with their titles. It's easier to do that without SteamPlay and a viable user base/market size (see Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store or Aspyr's recent titles).
Last edited by Jan on 21 March 2017 at 5:44 pm UTC
Do you guys even read Aspyr's or Feral's Facebook pages, are you subscribed to their newsletters?
Aspyr Facebook on December 22, 2016: "Linux users... I love you. There has been some talk about linux, but there is nothing in the works."
They repeated this statement several times on their social media channels using different formulations, but it's basically: "We talked it about it (with the publisher), but it won't happen".
Just to remind you:
Aspyr released KotOR II on Mac on Linux simultaneously. In October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
Of course, these are just re-releases of older classics, but still: Why did they bother to bring Fahrenheit and KotOR II over to Linux and now they're scaling their business model back to Mac and iOS ports (and delayed Linux releases like Civ VI)?
Porters need to get paid and at least break-even with their titles. It's easier to do that without SteamPlay and a viable user base/market size (see Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store or Aspyr's recent titles).
Last edited by Jan on 21 March 2017 at 5:44 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: JanJonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later.
Sure... targeting 3.5% of market share first is a sound business strategy for a guy complaining for "Braid didn't make any money on Linux"... Don't make my horseshoes laugh!
Seriously, those "Indie Guys" are full of themselves. I wonder, why didn't you remember Tommy Refenes with his "There'll also be a Linux version, because we're gonna waste our time with a Linux version. Linux is garbage." and "Linux can fuck off for all I care!" opinion.
Quoting: JanIn October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
...
Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store...
So, we can see what is going on here. Namely, Apple® trying to protect its Walled Garden by providing exclusives. We can assume it will be doing so for quite some time in the future, given that current game projects are refusing to support Metal™ technology.
But what has it to do with "the attitude of some Linux users"?
0 Likes
It's not about 3.5 % or 5 % desktop market share for macOS -- it's about profitability of a certain market segment and if people are willing to pay for a product.
If one buys a product from the Mac App Store, the developers know it's a Mac and not a Windows or Linux sale. That's important for internal calculations and business decisions within a company.
Apple users seem to spend more on apps and games than the average Linux user. It's the same in the mobile market: iOS is a giant market and more profitable than Android -- even though the latter is much bigger in numbers. Fragmentation of systems doesn't help devs at all (I'm from a startup/mobile background, developing both for Android and iOS).
That's one of the major reasons why SteamOS is so important for Linux to have a realistic chance as a gaming platform. It's one target distribution instead of a hundred.
It's not only about market share and sheer numbers -- mind share and image among developers and users is also very important for an OS to survive and thrive.
Guys like Jonathan Blow might seem to be arrogant or pretentious to you -- but these are smart people and it's sad they don't think of Linux as a "viable" and profitable option for their games.
Don't you think there are some correlations with the "attitude" some people show in this thread (and on Steam forums) regarding Linux ports or porting companies in general?
Ask Feral why they ported Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition to Mac but not Linux, why there's no LEGO or family-themed game from them on the platform, etc.?
I'll give you a hint: Sales potential and the structure/mindset of the Linux demographic/market might be a factor. That's why Liam fears for the platform and he's spot on in his article.
If one buys a product from the Mac App Store, the developers know it's a Mac and not a Windows or Linux sale. That's important for internal calculations and business decisions within a company.
Apple users seem to spend more on apps and games than the average Linux user. It's the same in the mobile market: iOS is a giant market and more profitable than Android -- even though the latter is much bigger in numbers. Fragmentation of systems doesn't help devs at all (I'm from a startup/mobile background, developing both for Android and iOS).
That's one of the major reasons why SteamOS is so important for Linux to have a realistic chance as a gaming platform. It's one target distribution instead of a hundred.
It's not only about market share and sheer numbers -- mind share and image among developers and users is also very important for an OS to survive and thrive.
Guys like Jonathan Blow might seem to be arrogant or pretentious to you -- but these are smart people and it's sad they don't think of Linux as a "viable" and profitable option for their games.
Don't you think there are some correlations with the "attitude" some people show in this thread (and on Steam forums) regarding Linux ports or porting companies in general?
Ask Feral why they ported Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition to Mac but not Linux, why there's no LEGO or family-themed game from them on the platform, etc.?
I'll give you a hint: Sales potential and the structure/mindset of the Linux demographic/market might be a factor. That's why Liam fears for the platform and he's spot on in his article.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me