The technical director for Electronic Art’s SEED division who works on the engine has stated that it’s capable of running on Linux. While very cool, this isn’t a reason to get your hopes up when it comes to future AAA ports just yet.
The Frostbite game engine has been used a lot in the past few years for powering many of the games created by EA-affiliated developers. Titles like Battlefield 1, Star Wars Battlefront II and various Need for Speed all run on Frostbite.
Johan Andersson, long time developer of the engine and current technical director tweeted this out earlier today:
the Frostbite dedicated servers do run on Linux for MP games, and we've had the client up also but not fully or officially supported
— Johan Andersson (@repi) September 7, 2017
This was after tweeting about how the Frostbite engine has about as much code as the Linux kernel.
While it’s exciting to learn that dedicated servers run on Linux, what’s more interesting is that they’ve also done work in getting a client up and running. It’s no secret that DICE, the studio that originally created the engine, and the people who have gone on to develop it since have been positive about wanting to bring their games to Linux for years. Still, a few years ago, Andersson dispelled any notion that it’s likely to happen anytime soon, saying that the Linux market share is too small to support.
We’ve come a long way as a gaming platform in the last few years, but I think that it’s still reasonable for publishers to be skeptical of making the financial commitment necessary to support Linux. Even if the engine already sort of works you need to hire dedicated QAs, allocate resources for platform-specific technical issues and to keep the port functional and up-to-date. Even massively popular and well-used engines like Unity or Unreal have many issues that any Linux user here can likely attest to the sometimes bumpy experience. This also doesn't take into account that EA has its own distribution platform, Origin, which would also need a port and would also incurr QA and technically-related costs to operate.
These aren't insurmountable challenges but it can be part of things that we gamers sometimes overlook when it comes to wanting games on our platform. Big publicly-traded companies like EA are accountable to investors who often wish to maximize profit. This occasionally means they’re a little shy to enter new, untested markets. Valve, being privately owned, had some more leeway in making these decisions when it decided to bring Steam and its game catalogue to Linux.
I’m cautiously optimistic that this is still an overall good sign. The Frostbite engine adopted AMD’s Mantle a few years ago and it wouldn’t surprise me if it adopted its kinda-successor-API Vulkan in the near future. That could further lower the barriers and convince the people who ultimately make these kinds of decisions that investing in Linux is worth the risk. For the meantime, I think it’s important to politely remind publishers and developers from time to time that we’re a receptive and understanding bunch and would be open to any ventures they made in our little market space.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: AsuEA should just winewrap up all of their old games and put it on steam. Start with the DOS games...
Uhm ... wouldn't the old ones use Dosbox instead ? :P
But yeah , would be nice , though I think some of the early C&C stuff is abandonware by now.
Plintslîcho Sep 10, 2017
Quoting: jensNo matter of Steam, DRM, always online only, Nvidia closed source only, I don't care what.
I don't want to sound rude but a genuine question: why are you using Linux then? Wouldn't it be easier to simply run Windows, where all the cool game are anyway?
Quoting: jensI wish that people would only want to play some cool games[...]
The way I see it a lot of people don't use Linux primarily because it's free (as in free beer) but because there is also a certain philosophy to it (open source, Linux being free as in free speech an all that). Naturally, a lot of people are also very vocal when it comes to defend those values.
Quoting: PlintslîchoI don't want to sound rude but a genuine question: why are you using Linux then? Wouldn't it be easier to simply run Windows, where all the cool game are anyway?
To make it short: games are not all, Linux is still the much better platform, despite some shortcomings (https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html has some very valid points imho). That said, my focus is on getting things done, not on fighting for freedom.
Edit: Removed some useless background info.
Last edited by jens on 10 September 2017 at 7:12 pm UTC
Quoting: PlintslîchoI don't want to sound rude but a genuine question: why are you using Linux then? Wouldn't it be easier to simply run Windows, where all the cool game are anyway?
I don't want to sound rude but...
I hate people like you, that's one of reasons that I prefer stay away of discussions on linux sub-reddit. This idea of "ew, if you like proprietary software, you must use Windows instead" doesn't make any sense.
-Linux can be very optimized on every hardware
-Linux is more secure
-Linux has a lot of customizations
-Windows is very expensive
You should learn what is freedom in first place, this is what Linux represent. If he doesn't cares about DRM, it's his choice.
Quoting: fagnerlnI hate people like you, that's one of reasons that I prefer stay away of discussions on linux sub-reddit.So.. you just signed up to jump into this discussion here?
Quoting: PlintslîchoQuoting: jensNo matter of Steam, DRM, always online only, Nvidia closed source only, I don't care what.
I don't want to sound rude but a genuine question: why are you using Linux then? Wouldn't it be easier to simply run Windows, where all the cool game are anyway?
Quoting: jensI wish that people would only want to play some cool games[...]
The way I see it a lot of people don't use Linux primarily because it's free (as in free beer) but because there is also a certain philosophy to it (open source, Linux being free as in free speech an all that). Naturally, a lot of people are also very vocal when it comes to defend those values.
The Linux ecosystem supports more than one philosophy, and consequently there's more than one reason that people choose to use Linux.
If you have used Linux long enough to remember, you will recollect that the term "Open Source" was specifically coined ( by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perrens, I think ) to advocate the benefits of the "bazaar" open development model. However, it was also coined to advance an alternative "open" narrative to the GPL, which is a restrictive licence, and was seen as quite poisonous by some.
For myself, I find the Richard Stallman/FSF worldview very unappealing, and it is the self-righteous moths that flutter in Richard's candlelight that I usually find most irritating ( I suspect these are the ones that annoy Jens as well).
My personal reasons for prefering Linux are that choice and control are vested in me, and not in the provider of the OS. Although I am comfortable with C/ASM programming, in 20+ years I have had almost no reason to modify any Linux ecosystem code ( ironically, when I have modified code, it is in order to compile it with MinGW for Windows ).
I do value the ability to read the source of open code libraries, since I can better judge whether I want to use their implementations, or would be better off creating my own; but this is entirely secondary to the issues of choice and control.
Beyond the basic availability of an operating system under my control, I am entirely pragmatic. Anyone can offer whatever they like, under whatever conditions they like, and it it then my choice as to whether I buy or not.
I would be the first to agree there have been many distastful decisions made by games developers/publishers, but they have the right to make those choices ( assuming they are legal ), in order to ( at least ) break even to continue making games. No-one is forced to buy games.
It is notable that any "philosophical advantage" of open development does not yet seem to have produced a significant body of high-quality games.
Quoting: etonbearsIt is notable that any "philosophical advantage" of open development does not yet seem to have produced a significant body of high-quality games.
If I may , wouldn't this have more to do with lack of other professions joining in also ?
Sure we have coders who can script a great game.
But without artists , musicians , composers , art directors , voice actors and so on , how far can we truly get towards a great game.
Just my two cents.
Quoting: razing32Quoting: etonbearsIt is notable that any "philosophical advantage" of open development does not yet seem to have produced a significant body of high-quality games.
If I may , wouldn't this have more to do with lack of other professions joining in also ?
Sure we have coders who can script a great game.
But without artists , musicians , composers , art directors , voice actors and so on , how far can we truly get towards a great game.
Just my two cents.
It's easy to contribute code under permissive licence, because it's usually only useful in that one place anyway. Artists can have a bigger dilemma, because once they create a sprite or a tune for an open-source game, they're likely to see it floating around the web, reused 100 times without as much as attribution.
Quoting: pbQuoting: razing32Quoting: etonbearsIt is notable that any "philosophical advantage" of open development does not yet seem to have produced a significant body of high-quality games.
If I may , wouldn't this have more to do with lack of other professions joining in also ?
Sure we have coders who can script a great game.
But without artists , musicians , composers , art directors , voice actors and so on , how far can we truly get towards a great game.
Just my two cents.
It's easy to contribute code under permissive licence, because it's usually only useful in that one place anyway. Artists can have a bigger dilemma, because once they create a sprite or a tune for an open-source game, they're likely to see it floating around the web, reused 100 times without as much as attribution.
Indeed, despite the tendency to caricature Stallman's positions, in real life he himself draws significant distinctions between the kind of thing he considers code to be and the kind of things he considers art, music, or fiction writing to be, and the kinds of approach to copyright issues that are appropriate. Stallman does not advocate GPLing things like art or music, and as a result has a somewhat different take on games than on most programs. I think he would be satisfied with open game engines and ideally code generally, but copyrighted artistic assets like art, music and story.
I think mostly what annoys people about Stallman is that, while his actual analysis and positions are cogent, consistent and rigorous, he goes around insisting on actually taking them seriously even when it's inconvenient, and suggesting that other people should do the same. It makes us uncomfortable since most of us have no intention of giving up any convenience in the pursuit of liberty or any other ethical good, whether in the arena of computing or any other.
Quoting: razing32Quoting: etonbearsIt is notable that any "philosophical advantage" of open development does not yet seem to have produced a significant body of high-quality games.
If I may , wouldn't this have more to do with lack of other professions joining in also ?
Sure we have coders who can script a great game.
But without artists , musicians , composers , art directors , voice actors and so on , how far can we truly get towards a great game.
Just my two cents.
Yes, that's true. For the type of game you have in mind the artistic personnel greatly outnumber the coding team ( if you assume coding is not artisic ). However, it is entirely possible to produce high quality games where most or all game assets are created procedurally by the coding team.
The real reason there are few significant open source games is simply the cost in time to organise and create them. Doing it for free in your spare time becomes a never-ending slog which, if it ever does complete, produces something that is generally out-of-date. Many people start games, but few are finished.
Patreon
PayPal
Oh and the name doesn't mean anything but coincidentally could be pronounced as "Buttery" which suits me just fine.
See more from me