Valve has boosted their Linux ranks by hiring another developer to work on open source graphics

Quoting: throghCelebrating again a company giving some efforts back to free and libre projects does not change anything. In fact it is the same "whitewashing" Google is doing, but hey ... it's all about proprietary software here and only sometimes about free / libre software!

It actually changes quite a lot. Have you been keeping up with the pace of improvements to Mesa? It's quite incredible the progress made and a fair bit of it, as stated, has come from Valve-employed developers.

It's nothing to do with whitewashing, do you even know what that means, because it really doesn't sound like it.

You know why we mostly write about proprietary software here? That's what most games tend to be, we are a gaming site. If people emailed in more tips about open source games, we would cover them. However, from my own research (of which I do a lot), open source games are developed a lot slower and there's obviously vast amounts less of them.

I think you need a little less pessimism and a little more positivity.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ScooptaBecause I don't think companies should rely on wine for their games and if wine gets that good that might start happening.

I agree with you that companies should strive to do proper native ports. But relying on Feral's wrappers for them isn't any better than relying on Wine, if native aspect is concerned.

In fact, Wine has advantages that closed wrappers don't. It gives you more freedom. Not only it's FOSS with available code that you can modify and run as you like, it's not tied to any distributor and can be used with any game you want. Compare it to Feral's wrappers that are available on Steam only and only for a few titles selected by Feral. I.e. personally I don't benefit form Feral's wrappers at all, since I'm not using Steam, while I can easily use Wine with GOG and other DRM-free games.

Yeah and while that might be true feral puts a lot of time and effort into their ports however that's not the biggest reason I prefer it over wine. First off I have a thing against binary wrappers. At that point it's not a port it's basically like emulation, even if it doesn't have the same overhead. But most importantly when companies collect stats on who plays their games wine users = Windows users. That is something that is not ok with me and I'll take DRM any day over that. Especially if it's just steam DRM which is barely even DRM compared to some of the crap that's out there.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: ShmerlWhat's the problem with strong FOSS competition?

In this case it reduces incentive for companies to natively support Linux.

Pumping as much cash into Linux supporting companies as possible is a big goal for Linux Gamers as cash is king.

I wouldn't argue with that, i.e. the fact that wrappers can have a chilling effect on making native ports. But that applies to all wrappers. By this logic you should see a problem with Feral too, since companies that use Feral's work cut costs and avoid proper native ports, using a wrapper instead. It's just cheaper for them. And on the other hand, if you are OK with some wrappers already, then you should be OK with all of them.

And see above, about what practical benefits Wine has in contrast with closed wrappers. Also, we as Linux users should support FOSS more, at least I'd expect that.

Yes but wine isn't a port. Feral might be doing some wrapping but they're not wrapping the entire binary. I'll take ports over wrappers any day even if the port has wrapper libraries.


Last edited by Scoopta on 9 February 2018 at 11:24 am UTC

Quoting: ScooptaYes but wine isn't a port. Feral might be doing some wrapping but they're not wrapping the entire binary. I'll take ports over wrappers any day even if the port has wrapper libraries.

I disagree with saying that Feral's wrapper has no effect on native gaming. It has. It reduces incentives to make native ports. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing, since wrapped release is better than no functioning option at all. But then your claim that binary wrapper somehow discourages native ports more doesn't make sense to me. It's IMHO completely irrelevant what kind of wrapping takes place if you are analyzing it as alternative to native port. It's all a shortcut that allows playing something without spending a lot on native rewrite. The only difference is that Wine allows it for anything, and Feral allow it for what they selected only.

So this whole argument is about marketing only (i.e. "viewed as Linux release" ), not about actual effect on native releases. Nothing stops developers doing what Topware did, and use Wine for marketed "official" Linux release.

This whole topic started as an answer to "Wine discourages native ports, while Feral are encouraging them". I don't see that difference. If anything, both provide non native options in different fashions, and one being a closed controlled by Feral product, while other is FOSS and can be used by anyone.


Last edited by Shmerl on 9 February 2018 at 2:58 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ScooptaYes but wine isn't a port. Feral might be doing some wrapping but they're not wrapping the entire binary. I'll take ports over wrappers any day even if the port has wrapper libraries.

I disagree with saying that Feral's wrapper has no effect on native gaming. It has. It reduces incentives to make native ports. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing, since wrapped release is better than no functioning option at all. But then your claim that binary wrapper somehow discourages native ports more doesn't make sense to me. It's IMHO completely irrelevant what kind of wrapping takes place if you are analyzing it as alternative to native port. It's all a shortcut that allows playing something without spending a lot on native rewrite. The only difference is that Wine allows it for anything, and Feral allow it for what they selected only.

So this whole argument is about marketing only (i.e. "viewed as Linux release" ), not about actual effect on native releases. Nothing stops developers doing what Topware did, and use Wine for marketed "official" Linux release.

This whole topic started as an answer to "Wine discourages native ports, while Feral are encouraging them". I don't see that difference. If anything, both provide non native options in different fashions, and one being a closed controlled by Feral product, while other is FOSS and can be used by anyone.

Feral gets paid for their efforts and deliver outstanding quality and support in turn. With wine it is always a gamble if something works or not with a certain wine version and there is no support at all. I do consider that a difference.

The main point though is still that gaming-on-Linux will only start to rise and shine when developers and gaming studios see that money can be earned when publishing for Linux. Stated otherwise: that investing in Linux is worth it. That is simply not possible with wine, every game bought for wine-gaming is still a windows sell and will only strengthen windows as gaming platform.

Quoting: jensLets say wine would aim for perfect support for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Lots of people would then buy the windows version and that in turn would mean a financial disaster for Feral once they release their version.

So, Feral can find other form of activity rather than selling a closed wrapper. That's what competition does. CodeWeavers found a way to make money on their FOSS project. I don't see a need to say don't make FOSS projects because it threatens closed ones. That's not how things work, by this logic Linux itself shouldn't have been made.


Last edited by Shmerl on 9 February 2018 at 3:26 pm UTC

Quoting: jensFeral gets paid for their efforts and deliver outstanding quality and support in turn. With wine it is always a gamble

No one stops developers from investing in Wine if they want to use it as a wrapper. Relationship doesn't need to be set up as "you need me as a middleman". It can be "I chose to you use your technology, so I'm going to contribute back to it".


Last edited by Shmerl on 9 February 2018 at 3:32 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: jensLets say wine would aim for perfect support for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Lots of people would then buy the windows version and that in turn would mean a financial disaster for Feral once they release their version.

So, Feral can find other form of activity rather than selling a closed wrapper. That's what competition does. CodeWeavers found a way to make money on their FOSS project. I don't see a need to say don't make FOSS projects because it threatens closed ones. That's not how things work, by this logic Linux itself shouldn't have been made.

I wouldn't underestimate the value Feral and friends currently have for Linux. Gaming on linux/Linux for Desktop will go back straight to the middle ages if the few AAA publishers we have decide to leave Linux and focus on Mac/iOS only.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ScooptaYes but wine isn't a port. Feral might be doing some wrapping but they're not wrapping the entire binary. I'll take ports over wrappers any day even if the port has wrapper libraries.

I disagree with saying that Feral's wrapper has no effect on native gaming. It has. It reduces incentives to make native ports. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing, since wrapped release is better than no functioning option at all. But then your claim that binary wrapper somehow discourages native ports more doesn't make sense to me. It's IMHO completely irrelevant what kind of wrapping takes place if you are analyzing it as alternative to native port. It's all a shortcut that allows playing something without spending a lot on native rewrite. The only difference is that Wine allows it for anything, and Feral allow it for what they selected only.

So this whole argument is about marketing only (i.e. "viewed as Linux release" ), not about actual effect on native releases. Nothing stops developers doing what Topware did, and use Wine for marketed "official" Linux release.

This whole topic started as an answer to "Wine discourages native ports, while Feral are encouraging them". I don't see that difference. If anything, both provide non native options in different fashions, and one being a closed controlled by Feral product, while other is FOSS and can be used by anyone.

Questions... Not saying it's impossible, but the initial game publisher never takes into account the wine compatibility when an update occurs, and usually doesn't want to either. Who is going to take charge of tracking the updates for a given game and maintaining the wine builds? Feral is doing that for it's releases with support form the initial publisher. The wine community can't do that for all games/app that it strives to support. When a game gets broken after an update, in some cases, it takes a couple of weeks/months for wine to catchup. Some stay in an approximate state for a much longer time... Too long or not enough efficient to be viable. I'd be curious to see what form it could take, but can the community get organized to play the role of Feral, with Wine?

Edit: Typo.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 9 February 2018 at 3:58 pm UTC

Quoting: jensI wouldn't underestimate the value Feral and friends currently have for Linux. Gaming on linux/Linux for Desktop will go back straight to the middle ages if the few AAA publishers we have decide to leave Linux and focus on Mac/iOS only.

If there is a distinct value, then competition isn't a problem, right? And if you worry that they'll be obsoleted by Wine, then Wine can provide that value all the same. So from Linux gaming perspective why is it bad? Competition usually moves things forward, and its lack causes stagnation.


Last edited by Shmerl on 9 February 2018 at 3:47 pm UTC